Skip to main content

Full text of "Historical Mirror Greek Rite Catholics 1884-1963"

See other formats

Historical Mirror 

Sources of the 

Rusin and Hungarian 

Greek Rite Catholics 

in the 

United States of America 


John Slivka 

Brooklyn, New York 



Foreword X 

Contents II 




OF AMERICA .1890 3 










IN 1898. 







BROOKLYN. N.Y. 1902 29 






SCRANTON,PA. 1902 30 







RISBURG,PA. 1902 36 


CLEVELAND, OHIO . 1905 39 
























BULLA 1908 68 











THEIR BISHOP. 1914 96 






CONGRESS 1913 107 




U.S.A. 1914 110 


















RUSINS . 1930 130 


ELITE SOCIETY . 1930 131 







OF OUR PRIESTS. 1932 143 

ING ANDWER 1932 144 



BASIL TAKACS . 1932 146 











MINUTES OF THE K.O.V.O. 1932 163 









CELIBACY. 1932 181 

























OF THE CLERGY. = .: 200 



BURGH, PA. 1933 201 


of the Greek Rite 202 














POZSONY - BRATISLAVA March 31 , 1655 230 








AMERICA. 1933 . 240 














CONN. 1935 283 


































Map IX 

Photo CLERGY 1890 and 1893 XII . 


A.R.S. - ARS. : Amerikansky Russky Viestnik 

A.R.Viestnik : Amerikansky Russky Viestnik 

Card. : Cardinal 

Fr . •. Father 

Fr.s. .Fathers 

Rev. : Reverend 




Pope Leo XIII. 



My goal or purpose in publishing these historical Sources, i.e. 
to help those who desire to learn and look into the past history - 
of the Catholics of the Greek Rite, especially the Uhro - Podkar- 
pathian Rusins and Hungarians now residing in the United States of 
America after having emigrated from the Kingdom of Hungary. 

It is to point out their struggle and the wonderful deeds ac- 
complishment they achieved dispite the fact that they were in a - 
foreign-land, where their ways of life and customs were being 
challenged. They readily saw many changes in the Unites States of 
America. However, there was one thing which did not change in the- 
ir lives; their love for their Church and their GREEK RITE. It is 
true, that they erred many a times in the past, but, to balance 
these errors were many merits. 

These documents consist of articles from Calendars, Newspapers, 
Periodicals, Papal Bullas, Correspondence, Court Decisions, Decree- 
s, Episcopal Appointments, Memoirs, Minutes of Meetings, Pamphlets, 

Pastoral Letters, Petitions, Tribunal Decisions, etc They 

show how these people struggled and diligently work for their 
Church Faith and Rite, at the same time earning their daily bread 
by the sweat of their brows. Never once did they forget GOD and 
His Church. 

It is difficult to understand that some 100 years have already 
past in the life of the GREEK RITE CATOOLICS of Uhro-Rusinc and 
Hungarian descent living in America and until the present day on- 
ly a few has remembered them through the publication of a real 
history written about and concerning them. As was the case in the 
past, more often than not they were simply forgotten orignored. - 
The proverb says : " Who is not interested in the past he does not 
deserve a better future". 

It is important for us to know the history of these humble de- 
vout and hard-working Uhro-Podkarpatski Rusins and Hungarians who 
emigrated from the Kingdom of Hungary between 1800 - 1900. In this 
way we will learn from their errors as well as good deeds and 
thus be deserving a better future 

Let us strive not only to be a good citizen of this great 
land, but also to be good patriots of our ancestors. These two - 
brothers always walk together, one without the other will not do. 

I have tried to collect as many documents and articles as we- 


re possible during the past many years. These articles will faci- 
litate the work of the historian who will be more able to inter- 
pret these documents and to place them into proper perspective . 
It has been my intent to measure up to the standards of the pre- 
sent day Historiography and have as many documents as facts which 
may be contravesal while at the same time trying not to silence 
the facts contained in the sources . 

We must purge ourselves of the disgrace, unpleasant ... facts 
and deal honestly with history. We must pause to evaluate ... the 
past, weighing we may make Resolutions for the future. 

I wish to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to all tho- 
se who have helped me assemble this collection. 

John Slivka 

First Greek Rite Catholic Clergy in the U.S.A. 1890 

Sitting from left to right: 

Rey, Gabriel Vislocky, Rev, Cornelius Zapotocky, Rev. Alexius Toth 

Rev. Theoplian Obuskevich. 

Standing: Rev. Eugene Volkay, Rev. Alexander Dzubay, Rev. Stephen 

Jackovics, Rev. George Hruska. 

wnv c 

The Greek Rite Catholic Clergy in the U.S.A. 1893 

Sitting from left to right: Rev. Augustine Laurisin, Rev. Eugene 

Volkay, Rev. Theophan Obuskevich, Rev. Nicephore Chanat, Rev. John 

Csurgovics, Rev. John Szabo. 

Standing: Rev. Alexander Sereghy, Rev. Stephen Jackovics, Rev. 

Eugene Szatala, Rev. Alexander Jackovics, Rev. Nicholas Sztecovics 

Rev. Cornelius Laurisin, Rev. Alexander Dzubay. 



The American history of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins and Ma- 
gyars (Hungarians) is closely knit. These Greek Rite Catholics be- 
gan to immigrate to the United States of America from Hungary in 
1868-1870. They settled in the Anthrocite mining region of Pennsyl- 
vania near the cities of Wilkes Barre and Scran ton, Pa. The first 
request for Greek Rite Catholic priests from this group came from 
those residing in Shenandoah , Pa . How poetic the name and how cha- 
racteristically foreign to these people who had found so much 
that was strange and difficult in this new land of their adoption. 
They worked hard at jobs to which they were totally unaccustomed , 
in mines which were unorganized and often were exploited by their 
employer, simply because of their ignorance of the strange and new 
customs in this land of promise. Their pittance as wages was prin- 
cely in comparison to the money which they had handled in their 
former homes. In the settled rural economy of Hungary they had for 
years understood their need and thus provided themselves with the 
necessary clothing ans shelter. Here their need were new, basic, un- 
predictable and often hidden from them by those whos duty inChris- 
tian charity it was to take care of them. Dispite these serious - 
physical problems, they lived in hope of understanding their needs 
and eventually being able to cope with them. Spiritually, however, 
they persistently longed for their religious services, to sing the- 
ir traditional chants, to hear sermons, and to confess their sins 
in their own language. It is not difficult to envisage how they - 
longed for their rite in order to be able to more fittingly celeb- 
rate the great feasts of Christmas Holy Week and Easter. We also 
find that use of the Julian Calendar helped these good people to 
more securely observe feasts in a manner they were accustomed to 
at home. 

The Shenandoah, Pa., congregation was the first to apply for a 
priest of their own rite from Metropolitan Sylvester Sembratovic - 
of Lemberg, Galicia. The Galician Rusins were in a minority at - 
that time and the reason for petitioning the Metropolitan Archbish- 
op, rather than the Uhro-Rusin Bishops, was simple, they felt that 
it would be much easier to obtain a priest from an Archbishop . This 
group was also the first to erect a church edifice, The honor of 
States of America goes to these good God fearing people of Shenan- 
doah, Pa. They were in large part from Hungary, minority from Gali- 
cia, Austria. 

Their petition for a priest of their own rite was directed to 
the Archbishop Sylvester Sembratovic, Metropolitan of Lemberg. 

The Metropolitan applied to Rome for permission to send priest- 
s as missionaries to his people in the United States of America . 
The first to be sent was Father John Voljansky, who was assigned 
to the Shenandoah, Pa., Congregation. As quickly as possible, Fr. - 
John Voljansky completed his preparations and soon sailed for the 
United States of America with his heart high in the of beginning a 
successful apostolate in America. Before commencing his missionary 
activities as directed by his Archbishop and with his work already 

sanctioned by the Congregation of the Propaganda in Some, the first 
presented himself with all his credentials to the Diocesan Chance-' 
ry in Philadelphia, Pa. The Chancellor of the Diocese of Philadel- 
phia, Father Hortsman, was ignorant of both of the Greek Rite and 
the married clergy in the Catholic Church. Despite the credentials 
which Father John Voljansky had presented from both his Archbishop 
and from Rome, he was refused jurisdiction in the Diocese of Phi- 
ladelphia. He was refused permission to either visit or to talk 
with the Bishop of Philadelphia. As a married priest he was brand- 
ed a Schismatic, an excommunicate and brusquely told that his in- 
tentions were of no interest to Roman Catholic officials. Under - 
this cloud of misunderstanding, misapprehension and ignorance Fr. 
John Voljansky journed to Shenandoah, Pa., and began his great - 
work for the salvation of souls. 

The good people of Shenandoah gave of their best. With grati- 
tude and hope in their hearts , they sacraf iced greatly and soon 
saw their church rise. When on November 20, 1885, Fr. John Voljan- 
sky asked God's blessing on the church in dedicating it to Divine 
Worship, public prayers were being offered throughout the Phila- 
delphia Diocese asking God to prevent the spread of this "SECT" - 
in the United States. 

Negotiations had already begun with Rome for the purpose of - 
recalling Fr, John Voljansky, HOW STRANGE 1 to first brand - 
good man a Schismatic and an Excommunicate with whom Catholics 
could have nothing to do, and then to appeal to the Highest autho- 
rity in the Chuch to recall this same man already allegedly outsi- 
de the Jurisdiction of Rome. 

The Congregation of the Propaganda could not have understood 
the ignorance of the Roman Catholic officials. It is very doubtful 
that they would believe such a request arising from shear ignoran- 
ce. Their construction of the case must have been that Fr. John - 
Voljansky was personally inadmissible; they would never have admit- 
ted that the entire Greek Rite of the Catholic Church was inadmis- 
sible in the United States as the Diocesan officials seemed to ha* 
ve thought. Rome directed Metropolitan Sylvester Sembratovic to - 
recall Fr. John Voljansky. The Metropolitan citing the permis- 
sion which he had sought and obtained from Rome, protested this - 
action stating that he was within his rights in sending Fr. John 
Voljansky. It was obvious that for such a noble mission he would 
send his most capable man. For the sake of peace however, Rome in- 
sisted on Fr. John Voljansky's recall. The Metropolitan obedient- 
ly, though sadly, ordered him to return to Europe. 

Despite, near century of labor, the erection of hundreds of 
churches, extraordinary organizations of schools, eparchial insti- 
tutions and host of educational efforts, The GREEK RITE is still 
to be integrated into the American scene. 

By 1889 - 1890 the number of Greek Rite Catholics in Wilkes 
Barre, Pa., had so grown that they were in a position to form a 
sizeable congregation. As more and more of their G reek Rite Rusin- 
s and Magyars immigrants arrived, they felt the need of the tre- 
mendous urge to celebrate their religious services in the tradi - 
tional and practice of their Greek Rite. Now it was to Bishop 
John Pasztelyi of the Eparchy of Munkacs that they appealed for 
priests to administer to their Spiritual needs. As a result , Fr. 
Alexander Dzubay came to Wilkes Barre, Pa., while Fr. Cyril Gulo- 

vies came to Freeland , Pa - , and Fr. John Zapotoczky came to Kings- 
ton, Pa., all towns in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania. 

Can it now be said that their many trials and tribulations - 
would be past history ? Did these men of God so impress theit La- 
tin brethren, priests and bishops, that everything was to be -... 
sailing. On the contrary, the sea of ignorance and hatered seemed 
to spread. More and more these clergymen, these members of the E- 
piscopate presumably intelligent, educated and learned men dis- 
played abysmal ignorance of the ramification of the Catholic 
Church and instead displayed a type of intolerance and even vin- 
dictiveness wholly at variance with Catholic charity. 

Pushing aside these as well as thousands of other difficulties 
and involved in a strange country, the good priests devoted them- 
selves to caring for the spiritual needs of their emigrant flock. 
Their task was to bring the Greek Rite Catholic services , ceremoni- 
es and blessings to their people. In time, too, they were to shoul- 
der economic burdens and to share experiences and hardships. Above 
all they were interested in laying a firm and solid foundation for 
the work of the GREEK RITE CATHOLIC CHURCH in America. 


The following are the minites of the First Greek Rite Catholic 
Clergy Meeting held in Wilkes Barre,Pa., on the day of Prophet O- 
sia, October 17-19, 1890. 

For the past twelve years the Rusin people are living here in 
America, having come here seeking employment. They all are members 
of the Greek Rite Catholic Church, immigrating from Hungary and Ga- 
licia, Austria. Being faithful Greek Rite Catholics, their faith 
has moved them to petition their European Bishops, to send them 
priests, shepherds to America. Being in the foregn country, where 
there are many different religions and sects, they desire not to 
be without spiritual help and consolation, i.e., without their own 
clergy. In this need they are turning to the Archbishop of Lemberg 
Lvov, Peremysl,Munkacs and Eperjes with a petition that they send 
them clergy to America, to administer their spiritual needs. These 
immigrant Fathers will work successfully for the Greek Rite Cathol 
ic Rusin people and unite them in a group as did Father Alexius 
Toth, Pastor of Minneapolis , Minn. , who invited all the Greek Rite 
clergy for a meeting to Wilkes Barre,Pa., on the day of Prophet O- 
sia, in October 17-19, 1890 (1). 

All ten of the Greek Rite Catholic clergy in the United States 
of America gladly accepted the invitation, but truely only eight 
were present at the meeting, namely Fathers: 1. Alexius Toth, Min- 
neapolis , Minnesota (Eperjes Eparchy > 2. John Zapotoczky, Kingston, 
Pa., Eperjes Eparchy). 3. Theophane Obuskevic, Shamoken , Pa . , (Pere- 
mysl Eparchy), 4. Alexander Dzubay, Wilkes Bar re, Pa. , (Munkacs Epar- 
chy), 5. George Hruska, Jersey City, N.J. (Lemberg Archeparchy ) , 6 . 
Eugene Volkay, Hazleton, Pa., (Munkacs Eparchy), 7. Gabriel Vislocky, 
Olyphant, Pa., (Eperjes Eparchy. 8. Stephen Jackovics, Assistant - 
Pastor, Wilkes Barre,Pa, (Munkacs Eparchy), 9. Constantine Andru- 
chovic, Shenandoah, Pa. , (Archeparchy of Lemberg), and 10. Cyril Gu- 
lovics, Freeland, Pa. , (Munkacs Eparchy), who objected to having the 
meeting in the Rectory and suggested, it should be held in a Hotel. 

This was reported to Fr. Alexius Toth. 

On the appointed day the eight clergymen was present, prior to 
the meeting a Divine Liturgy was celebrated by the senior Fr. John 
Zapotoczky. After the Divine Liturgy, "Mnohaha l'ita" was sung for 
the European Archbishop and Bishops, followed by Panachida (Requi- 
em service) for the deceased priest who died in America, Namely 'Zi- 
novij L'achovic. Returning to the rectory of Fr. Alexander Dzubay, 
the meeting soon commensed, with a prayer "Carju nebesnyj". 

A chairman of the meeting was elected, namely Fr. Alexius Toth 
and two recording secretaries: Fr.s : Theophan Obuskevic and Euge- 
ne Volkay. 

An introductory address was delivered by Fr. Alexius Toth with 
the following program: 

1. To petition the concerned bishops to select one of the - 
present American clergyman as a representative of the bishop, with 
certain jurisdiction concerning the Spiritual matters, etc. 

2. To petition the European Bishops, Ordinaries to keep all 
of us in their jurisdiction and not to transfer us to the jurisdic- 
tion of the Latin Rite Bishops. 

3. To legally assume a pastorate a priest must report to the 
priest in charge with his credentials. 

4. On whose name is the church property to be deeded accord- 
ing State Law and regulations ? 

5. Are non-catholics to be accepted in the church societies 
or only the faithful may join such societies ? 

6. Are the parishioners to have assigned territory or not - 
also who is a parishioner and who is not ? 

7. Who is the controller of the church property ? 

8. Rules concerning building fund collections of churches 
must be strictly prescribed in the future . 

9. The suggestions of the present clergy. 


1. Concerning the selection of a representative of the bish- 
op for our churches in the United States of America, it was resol- 
ed that here in America all the people of the Catholic Church, be- 
long to their own bishops and in case of need to their representa- 
tive who will organize the faithful to acquire benefit to the 
church rite and faithful. Petition humbly the Greek Rite Catholic - 
Bishops to come to an understanding in selecting one of our clergy- 
man for this task. There is no question that our beautiful Greek 
Rite of the Catholic Church shall uphold the stipulations with 

me , which were recommended at the Council of Florence also in - 
Brest in 1595 and approved. 

We are to be well organized, not to become the prey of unbe- 
lievers or the Roman Catholics, who are ignoring us, wishing to 
disperse us. We will not accept any patronizing tolloration,nor - 
be decieved by the Latin Rite clergy and bishops. That in the fu- 
ture we would not be responsible for the difficulties in our 
Church or for what was done in the past. We humbly petition our - 
bishops kindness in this matter. 

2. The reason of patronizing, tollorating of church are not 
important. They lack knowledge about our Greek Rite Catholic 
Church and its agreement in the pact of Union and thus the Latin 

Rite bishops and clergy do not feel obligated by them. We are pe- 
titioning our Hierarchs, not to give us over to the Latin Rite ju- 
risdiction, not to be influenced by them to abandon our Greek Rite 
and gradually to become Roman Catholics. 

That our Greek Rite remain in its purity, and the Union with 
Rome to be upheld by all means, we need a strong organization of 
our clergy, which without the approval of our Greek Rite Catholic 
Bishops is unthinkable. 

3. Concerning the assuming of a pastorate by a priest com- 
ing from Europe , only such persons may be appointed who were app — 
roved by the bishop and we should not have two priests appointed 
to the same parish. We also beg out bishops to send to America On- 
ly MARRIED men, married priests. This is the request of our Church 
discipline and pact of Union, which states, that the marriage of 
the clergy be not forbidden. Inform Rome, that in Our Greek Rite 
Catholic Church most of the priests are married, and only a few 
remained celibats . Our faithful accept and highly respect our 
married clergy, more so than the single clergy. 

4. The property of the church is to be deeded according the 
State Law : two trustees, local pastor and a representative of the 

5. The church organizations are not to accept non-catholics 
and the officials of the societies are to take a pledge in the 
church . 

6. Concerning the territorial boundries of a parish we must 
keep the "status quo", because all those, who took part . in the 
building of the church are parishioners, and also those that sup- 
port it, further more we must show our Christian charity, the love 
of Christ to those who wish to come to our church. 

7. The controller of the church property first of all is the 
local priest, with the help of pledged officials, who are taking 
care of the finances and recording of parish income and expenses. 

8. Collectors for building funds throughout the States must 
be responsible and trust worthy men, who also will take a pledge - 
to carry out their obligation honestly. Secondly their building 
fund collection book must have a introduction in it by a Pastor, 
church seal and the signature of the representative of the bishop. 

9. It is recommended that each parish have its yearly meet- 
ing, the matter discussed at the meeting must be reported to the 
European Bishops by sending them the minutes of the meeting. 

Fr. Theophan Obuskevic made a motion that the priests estab- 
lish a newspaper naming it "NOVYJ SVIT" (New World) . Approved. 

Fr. Alexius Toth thanked his brother priests for taking part 
in the discussions. 

The meeting was concluded with the prayer "Dostojno". 

Wilkes Barre,Pa., October 17-19, 1890 

Signed: Alexius Toth , Chairman 
Theophan Obuskevic, Secretary. 

According the historical minutes of the FIRST GREEK RITE CATH 
OLIC CLERGY MEETING held in Wilkes Barre,Pa,' in 1890 there were 
ten Carpatho Rusin clergy in the United States of America ( z ) 

This is a clear document, that our Carpatho Rusin people liv- 
ing in America are well trained in piety, offered their lives un- 

der the patronage of their Church and clergy. The clergy at Wilkes 
Bar re, Pa discussed matters, which would be the most beneficial to 
unite their people. Fr. Alexius Toth was authorized to send a cir- 
cilar letter to all the Greek Rite Catholic Societies. This was 
sent out December 6-18, 1890. The goal of uniting all the Societi- 
es into one Society was: With all power to protect the interests 
of our Eastern Rusin Church, its Rite, as the Roman Catholic Bish- 
ops did not recognize the Greek Rite Uniate clergy and acted as 
their enemies, excommunicating them, personally attacking them, be- 
cause the Greek Rite Catholic clergy administered the Sacrament of 
of CONFIRMATION, gave communion under both species to the faithful, 
were married, a status which according the Roman Catholic views 
was a scandal (?) . What a Sacrament causing scandal? One society 
would tend to protect with all our might our RUSIN nationality, be- 
cause many of our brothers enrolled in foregn societies, in Latin 
Rite Societies to have protection in sickness and death. The goal 
is praise worthy. 



According Fr. Alexius Toth the Rev. Fathers of the First cler- 
gy Meeting had great intentions to leave "in corpore" their great - 
goals with the enemies. But it was noted that among the Carpatho - 
Rusin spiritual Fathers only one was found to do so. He was the - 
Pastor of Minneapolis, Minn. , namely Fr. Alexius Toth (Eperjes Epar-» 
chy) , the iniciator of the Firtst Greek Rite Catholic Meeting . He 
saw the Latin Rite Bishops ignoring the laws of "Union" - and 
Rusin nationality, he stepped out to defend them. The following 
circumstances led him to his decision. Before Fr. Alexius Toth ca- 
me to the United States of America, the Roman Catholic Bishop of 
Philadelphia, Pa. , did not wish to grant jurisdiction to Fr. John 
Voljansky, who because he was married, had many misunderstand - 
ings. At that time Fr. Alexius Toth accepted the Minneapolis, Minn, 
parish. Here too misunderstandings began with the Archbishop John 
Ireland, As to what they were Fr. Alexius Toth explains the fol- 
lowing:" I arrived in America as a Uniate, as a former professor . 
of Church Law. I was fully aware that in America I as a Uniate - 
must obey the Latin Rite Bishop, in whose Diocese I will serve 
this is demanded by the Union, and several Papal Decrees, because 
there is no Greek Rite Catholic Bishop in the United States of A- 
merica. All this was written in my credentials. The city of my ap- 
pointment was Minneapolis, Minn., in the Archdiocese of Archbish- 
op John Ireland. As a faithful Uniate and acting on advice of 
Bishop John Valyi, I presented myself to Archbishop John Ireland 
December 19,1890, kissing his hand (without a genuflection that was 
my great mistake , which I later recognized) , I handed my accredita- 
tions to the Archbishop. I well remember as he just had read, that 
I am a Greek Rite Catholic, his hands began to tremble. It took - 
the archbishop about 15 minutes to read my accreditations, after - 
that he firmly questioned me ( the conversation was in Latin) . Do 
you have a wife ? I replied, no, but I had one, I am a widower . - 
When the Archbishop heard this, he threw my documents on the table 
and in a loud voice shouted: I have already sent a protest to Ro- 
me not to send such priests here. I asked the Archbishop, what 
kind of priests do you mean ? The Archbishops reply was, such as 

you are. I replied, after all I am a Catholic priest of the Greek 
Rite, I am a Uniate, was ordained by a valid Catholic Bishop. The 
Archbishop: I do not consider you, nor your bishop as a Catholic , 
furthermore, there is no need here for a Greek Rite Catholic pri- 
est. It is sufficient, we have a Polish priest, he can be the pri- 
est for the Greek Rite Catholics. I replied, but, he is of the La- 
tin Rite, our people will not understand him, nor turn to him, 
they even built a church for themselves. Archbishop Ireland re- 
plied;! did not give them permission, neither will I give you ju- 
risdiction to work here. I was bitter of such a rude fanatism 
from the representative of the Papal Church, so I sharply replied: 
In such case I do not need your jurisdiction, nor your absolution; 
I know the laws of the Catholic Church, I know how the Union was 
established and in such manner I will go forward. The Archbishop - 
became pale white, so did I. Word after word followed, that it is 
not worth to renew the conversation. 

Two days later Fr. Jacob Pocholski the Polish priest* came to see 
me, he was in fear. For Gods sake Father, what did you do? The Arch- 
bishop wrote to me, that I should not have any relations with you. 
he does not consider you as a valid priest, he firmely ordered me 
that I announce all that from the pulpit, forbidding the people to 
accept any of the Sacraments from you. 

I answered, concerning you Father, you do as you please and I 
will not give, up, and as far as I am concerned, I do not care what 
will the Archbishop and you do. 

The order of the Archbishop was announced in the Polish Roman 
Catholic Church, that he does not consider me a Catholic, and that 
all my work is useless, and forbade the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin 
people to attend their church. The Archbishop also complained to 
Rome and was threattening many of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin im- 
migrants stating, that he will chase their priests away. At that 
time I had received letters from a few of my friends as how the La- 
tin Rite Bishops and priests treat them. I have informed the Uni- 
ate Bishop of Eperjes about all this, asking his instructions, but 
I did not receive a reply. That would be the day, when a Uniate Bi- 
shop would dare to say anything contrary to a Latin Rite Archbish- 
op. Still I wrote the second and third letter, still no reply. Fi- 
nally I received instructions from Canon Joseph Dzubay: For Gods 
sake, suffer, and if the Archbishop doubts that you are a Catholic 
verify it with an oath. Another letter came informing me to discri- 
be in writing, how the Archbishop received you, describe it wisely 
because it will be sent to Rome. I even done that. Then Canon Jo- 
seph Dzubay informed me that the truth was very sharply written, 
therefore it could not been sent to Rome, even though all was done 
according instructions, such a letter which says, the Latin Arch- 
bishop do not respect the Union , etc . , could not be sent to Rome 

The Catholic Bishops and their clergy treated the other Uni- 
ate clergy the same way. All this was done, because 1HEY WERE MAR- 
RIED and conducted their Divine Services in the Slovanic language, 
and most of all, that they caused a financial loss to the Latin 
clergy. The Roman Catholics did not permit them to their churches, 
accursed and belittled the. The Pittsburgh Latin Rite Bishop ex- 
pressed himself:" that a MARRIED PRIEST COULD NOT BE A GOOD NOR 

All of our complaints to Rome received such an answer: RECALL 

these priests to the Old-country. 

Fr. Alexius Toth decided to leave the Catholic Church and be- 
come Orthodox, December 19, 1890. 


In December 1891 the clergy again met for the second meeting - 
in Hazleton,Pa. . The local newspaper "THE DAILY SPEAKER" of Decem- 
ber 3-4, 1891 wrote the following: 

Today in Hazleton, Pa., a great church event will occur, here 
will meet all the Greek Rite Catholic clergy, as many as they are 
in the United States, because they received an order from Rome to 
renounce their wives and children. On account of this order they 
are thinking of separating from Rome. 

The present clergy estimated the number of Greek Rite Catholic 
s in the United States of America, be about 150,000. 

Important decisions were accepted by the Greek Rite Catholic 
Church. Practically all the Greek Rite Catholic clergy living in 
the United States of America are in our city for a Convention to 
set their plans. Yesterday 15 were present. 

The day began with the Divine Liturgy celebrated by Fr.Theophan 
Obuskevic of Olyphant , Pa . , and Fr. Cornelius Laurisin from Oseceo- 
la Mills, Pa, the sermon was delivered by Fr. Nicephor Chanat of - 
Passaic, N.J. The meeting commenced at Fr. Eugene Volkay' s rectory. 
Fr. Theophan Obuskevic was selected Chairman of the meeting, Fr . 
Eugene Volkay recording secretary. The morning passed by stressing 
objectively the reply of the Pope, in which the Pope refused the 
Greek Rite Catholic clergy their petition to say the Divine Litur- 
gy in a language understood by the people, to have their own natio- 
nal bishop and to have married clergy. After the point by point jud- 
gement, they arrived at an ultimatum to be sent to the Pope with 
the final communication, that if the present need will not receive 
a favorable reply, they will refuse to obey the Holy See the Roman 
Catholic Church. 

They organized a Fraternal Society named "GREKO KATOLICESKOJE 
SOJEDINENIJE"; soon a newspaper will be founded, which will be an 
organ of the church. It was decided that the following meeting 
will be held in Wilkes Barre,Pa., February 1st. 1892. By that time 
they will receive a reply from the Pope, then they will be able to 
begin their work; the clergy will select one, from among them as a 

The following were present at the Hazleton , Pa . , Convention Frs: 
1. Augustine Laurisin, Mahanoy City, Pa., 2. Cornelius Laurisin, Os- 
ceola Mills, Pa., 3. Nicholas Stecovics , Wilkes Barre,Pa., 4. George 
Hruska, Jersey City, N. J., 5. Nicephor Chanat, Passaic, N. J. , 6. Al- 
exander Sereghy, Brooklyn, N. Y. , 7. Stephen Jackovics, McKeesport,-Pa 
Pa., 8. Alexander Dzubay, Oregon, City, Pa., 9. Eugene Volkay, Hazle- 
ton, Pa., 10. Theophane Obuskevic*. Olyphant, Pa. , 11. Alexius Toth, 
Minneapolis , Minn . , 12. Cyril Gulovics, Freeland,Pa. , 13. Gabriel - 
Vislocky, Scranton,Pa. , 14 Cons tan tine Adruchovic, Shenandoah , Pa . 
It is noticed that the Carpatho Rusin Greek Rite Catholic cler- 
gy opposed all the Latin Rite oppression, but decided not to fol- 
low the footsteps of Fr. Alexius Toth. Their earnest prayers still 
remained a voice of the desert. The meeting was closed with a pray- 
er. Fr. Theophan Obuskevic, Chairman Fr Eugene Volkay, Sec. 


After the Hazleton,Pa. , meeting the many protests to Rome and 
their brave declaration that they will not subject themselves to 
the Latin Rite Bishops, the Schism of Fr. Alexius Toth, the orga- 
nizing of the "SOJEDINENIJE" , the endeavour of our Old-country Bi- 
shops and the order from Rome, the Holy See, the Latin Rite Bish- 
ops and clergy stopped persecuting our Greek Rite Catholic clergy. 
After all these misunderstandings Rome gave permission to MARRIED 
PRIESTS to come to the United States of America. Every Greek Rite 
Catholic priest coming from Europe to the United States of Ameri- 
ca was obliged to report to the Latin Rite Bishop and present his 
documents, testimony of his bishop. The Latin Rite Bishops accept- 
ed him and inscribed his name in the Directory of his diocese, but 
he functioned in a Greek Rite Catholic parish with the approval of 
the Latin Rite Bishop. 

This subordination to the Latin Rite Bishop gave the Bishop - 
the possibility of demanding the deeding of church property of the 
Greek Rite Catholics on his name, i.e., in trust of the Latin Rite 
Bishop. The first Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic Church property 
deeded to the Latin Rite Bishop was the Freeland,Pa. , Greek Rite 
Catholic Church by Fr. Cyril Gulovics. 

Some of our Greek Rite Catholic priests did not want to give - 
up the jurisdiction given them by their Bishop, whereas it was 
prescribed they do so. This act brought a division among the cler- 
gy, one group obeyed the instructions the other did not. 

There were two groups of clergy, but they still worked for the 
same goal or cause. This was especially true, when the Greek Rite 
Catholic Church was attacked by the Latin Rite clergy and the Schi 
smatics. Even though the Latin Rite Catholics became friends of - 
our clergy, they could not forget their past attitude. They did - 
not believe in their friendship, had no confidence in them. 

The Schismatic clergy were more dangerous than the Latin Rite 
clergy, because it was not as easy to take our people over to the- 
ir Rite, whereas the Schismatics had the same Rite and well paid 
agents did their atmost to induce our people to accept Orthodoxy. 
The Russian Government at that time was sending $75,000.00 yearly 
for the propogation of faith in the United States. There was plen- 
ty money to pay the agitators. 

Naturally our Greek Rite Catholic clergy had a double front , 
which was dangerous for them and the people. 

The Greek Catholic Union, Sojedinenije was organized in 1892 - 
so was the AMERIKANSKY RUSSKY VIESTNIK newspaper. 

Our clergy and lay people were working hard in organizing our 
people into our organization. At that time many immigrants arrived 
and more followed. A new strenght of intelligentsia was arriving. 
At the organization of the Sojedinenije ten Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite 
Catholic clergy were present, and three Galician Rusins. 

All these clergymen strived to hold the Uhro-Rusin and the Ga- 
lician Rusins in one group, that they be strong. True, there was 
some silent misunderstanding among the Uhro-Rusin clergy. Some of 
the Uhro-Rusin clergy were of Hungarian spirit and the Galicians - 
of the Russian spirit.. Two of them were of Ukrainian spirit C. - 
Andruchovic and G. Hruska) and one of Russian spirit (T.Obuskevic. 


Still there was no open attack from neither side against each oth- 


It is a natural fact the money means a lot in economy politics 
and in religion. Our Rusin people are deeply religious. In Europe 
they lived in a peaceful religious atmosphere. They knew nothing a- 
bout any religious misunderstandings. No one attacked their church, 
but when they arrived in the United States of America a religious 
fight was awaiting them. First from the side of the Latin Rite Bi- 
shops and clergy and later the Orthodox. 

Because of the hostile attitude of the Latin Hierarchy and - 
clergy towards our Greek Rite Catholic clergy and people, and se- 
condly the inability of one of the Uhro- Rusin priests Fr. Alex- 
ius Toth, to solve his financial difficulties schism came among 
our Greek Rite Catholic people. 

The Russian Orthodox Church subsedised Fr. Alexius Toth, who 
was excommunicated by Bishop John Valyi of the Eperjes Eparchy be- 
cause he squandered 10,000 florints as the Eperjes Chapter treasu- 

The Russian Government sent $75,000.00 yearly to the United 
States of America for the propagation of the Russian Orthodox 
Church. Every Orthodox priest received his salary from this sum - 
besides they took their salary from the parish. The Russian Czar, 
paid well and awarded titles. Many of our Uhro-Rusin and Slovanic 
people received titles from the Czar. The first Uhro-Rusin was - 
awarded, then the Sloviaks for their Pan-Slovanism etc. 

Under such circumstances many attacks fell upon our clergy - 
from the Latin and the Orthodox Pan-Slovanofils , Ukrainians .They 
had a different social life at home, but the spirit of religion - 
was strongly expressed in the Greek Rite Catholic Rite. Our Greek 
Rite Catholic clergy did not follow Fr. Alexius Toth into Ortho- 
doxy, only two of them were the exception: Fr. Michael Balogh and 
Fr. Victor Toth. Most of the Greek Rite Catholics who went to - 
the Orthodox Church were the Galician Lemkos, the reason being - 
that many Ukrainofil clergy came to the United States of America, 
whereas the Lemkos were of Russian orientation. 

The Uhro-Rusins fought against Orthodoxy with all their might, 
but received no material help from anyone as did the Orthodox . The 
Orthodox began printing many pamphlets, drilling the people in - 
the right faith and nationality. 

The outstanding writer of the pamphlets was Fr. Alexius Toth. 
Our Greek Rite Catholic clergy had to fight against him, a fight 
which was not an easy one. Fr. Alexius Toth was continually re- 
ceiving financial help and our clergy had to fight practicaly - 
with bare hands. They deprived themselves of food to have a pam- 
phlet printed in the ecclesiastical struggle. The SOJEDINENIJE - 
took a great part in defending the Church against Fr. Alexius Toth 
schism through its newspaper the A.R.Viestnik. It also united the 
Uhro-Rusins into one society the SOJEDINENIJE. 

When the educated Russian priests arrived, the fallen away - 
Greek Rite Catholic Uhro-Rusins did not understand the language - 
of the new comers. To remedy the situation, the Orthodox accepted 
uneducated Uhro-Rusins who knew the services and ordained them - 


These were the ones who went among the Uhro-Rusins and organized 
them and built a church for them as long as they had 10-20 famili" 
es. Money was coming from Russia for such purposes, financial que- 
stions did not bring hardship for them, their part was only to get 
as many as possible Greek Rite Catholic; - Uhro-Rusins to their fold, 
to the Russian Orthodox Church. 

Time came when there was no more harvest for the Russian achis- 
m, that even the great instigator Fr. Alexius Toth wished to leave 
the Russian Schism, he petitioned the Serbian Patriarch to accept 
him into his fold under his jurisdiction in a HUNGARIAN PARISH. The 
Patriarch replied: I have no Hungarian Greek Rite parish, therefo- 
re I cannot accept you. The consequence was that he had to remain 
in the Russian Church. ( ) 

ACTA SANCTAE SEDIS. Vol. XXX/pp. 635-636 
T M A E 1897 - 1898 

Ex S.C. de Propaganda Fide. 

Romana Ecclesia charitate Apostolica et suprema Auctoritate - 
sua sedulam vigilemque in eo iugiter operam posuit,Pastorum ac iu- 
re fidelibus tueri et conformandi niteretur. Quo circa Orientali- 
um in America Septentrionali degenitum potestatem recognovit pro- 
prium exercendi ritum , at siir.ul ipsis subiectionem debitam latin- 
is Ordinariis enixe commendavit. His duabus conditionibus praesti- 
tutis, plures postremis hisce annis. easque utilissimas normas e<- 
didit quibus eorundem f idelium bono prospiceret et pietatem fove;- 
ret. Dolendum tamen est Orientales non paucos ob defectum sacerdo- 
tum proprii ritus spiritualibus auxiliis ferme destitutos manere. 
Quapropter ut eorum necessitatibus occurrere posset haec S . Con- 
gregatio plurimum Episcoporum precibus permota (Firmis ceteroquin 
manentibus praescriptionibus contentis in litteris circularibus e- 
ditis die 1. Octobris 1890 et Apriliis 12, 1894 praesertim quoad 
mittendos in Americam dignos ac caelibes sacerdotes, et quoad sub- 
iectionem servandam erga Ordinarios latinos) haec tria sanctissi- 
mo Domino Nostro Leone probante, decrevit. 

1. Fidelibus Orientalibus Americam Septentrionalem confluen- 
tibus facultas esto, si libuerit, sese confirmandi ritui latino - 
regrediendum tamen ipsis erit ad ritum proprium simul ac in patri- 

2. Orientalibus, qui verum et stabile donticilium in America 
Septentrionalis constituerint non permittatur ad ritum latinum ni- 
si obtenta in singulis casibus venia Apostolicae Sedis. 

3. In provinciis ecclesiasticis Americae Septentrionalis, in 
quibus multi sunt Fideles Rutheni ritus, Archiepiscopns cuiscumque 
Provinciae, initis conciliis cum suis suffraganeis sacerdotem Ru- 
thenum caelibatu et idoneitate commendabilem deputet et huius de- 
fectu sacerdotem latini ritus Rutheni s benevisum, qui super popul- 
um et clerum dicti Ritus vigilantiam et directionem exerceat, sub 
omnimoda tamen dependentia Ordinarii loci, qui pro suo arbitrio ei 
tribuat, quae in Domino expedire iudicaverit. 

Contraris quibus cumque non obstantibu-. 

Datum Romae ex aedibus eiusdem S.Congregationis die 1. Maii - 

L + S Miecislavus Card. Ledochowski.S .R.C. Praefectus. 



At the time of immigration Greek Rite Catholics in the United 
States of America all claimed to be RUSINS, being of the same rer 
ligion, rite and language. Still the Galician Rusins could not co- 
me to an understanding with the Uhro-Rusins. The Russophiles, were 
demorelizing the Uhro-Rusins, so did the Ukrainophiles . and to add 
to it Hungarian spirited Uhro-Rusins did not help to bring a peace- 
ful understanding either. This group of people not having their - 
own shepherd-bishop had no one to make them understand each. 
The Roman Catholics were not helpful either in these turbulant ti- 
mes. The general law of the Catholic Church is, that all Catholics 
belong to the jurisdiction of the local bishop, in vhose territory 
they were living. With this reasoning, the Latin Rite Bishops beg- 
an to demand from the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins, that they place 
the church property in trust to them, also the clergy are to ask - 
jurisdiction from them if they wished to function in the Latin Ri- 
te Bishops territory. Our clergy and the faithful opposed these 
demands. The misunderstanding came among the Latin Rite Bishops - 
and the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins, because they listened to the ■ 
false reports about them from the Polish priests, who were not - 
friendly to them, not only in the United States of America, but e 
ven in Europe . Therefore the conditions day by day • were getting 

Metropolitan Andrew Septicky of Lvov (Lemberg) who was corres- 
ponding with his clergy who immigrated to the United States of A- 
merica, knew from them the unpleasant situation of the Greek Rite 
Catholic Rusins in America. As a good shepherd, he took upon him- 
self the task, and hard work, to get a bishop for the Greek Rite 
Catholic Rusins in America. The Metropolitans task was not an ea- 
sy one to accomplish. Political circumstances had a lot to do 
with such an appointment. At that time the Minister of Foreign Af- 
fairs, Exterior of Austro-Hungary was a Hungarian. Not to estran- 
ge the Uhro-Rusins from Hungary, the Hungarian Government was try- 
ing to do its best for them, and themselves by obtaining a Hunga- 
rian spirited bishop. The same was done by the Galicians, they - 
too sent Ukrainophiles to the United States of America to persuade 
some people to their side. Both parties wanted their own man to be 
a bishop. The Hungarians had their appointee, so did the Galicians. 
Metropolitan Septicky persuaded the Church authorities in Rome, - 
that only a Galician could fill all the desires and needs of the - 
immigrant Rusins in the United States. Rome appointed a priest of 
the Order of St. Basil the Great, Fr. Soter Ortynsky a fervent pat- 
riot, excellent preacher and missionary. He wil] block the Moscow- 
philes who were causing so much trouble in the United States among 
the Greek Rite Catholics. When the Hungarian Government found out 
that a Galician is to be appointed bishop in America, they finally 
agreed to the appointment with a clause, that the Vicar General , 
Chancellor be selected from among the Uhro-Rusins and the next bi- 
shop will be from the Uhro-Rusins with a Galician Chancellor. 

On August 27, 1907 Bishop Soter Ortynsky arrived in the United 
States of America welcomed by over 30 Greek Rite Catholic priests. 
At that time the Uhro-Rusins were in the majority, twice as many 
as the Galicians. At the dock Fr. Theophan Obuskevic from Galicia 


welcomed the Bishop, who in return greeted all who were present . 
From the dock all went to the St. George's Greek Rite Catholic - 
Church, 7th Street New York,N.Y. 

At the church entrance Fr. Joseph Caplinsky, the pastor of the 
church welcomed the newly arrived Bishop. A Paraklis was celebrat- 
~ed at which a sermon was delivered by Fr. Cornelius Laurisin (Uh- 
ro-Rusin) . Soon after the church service all the delegates from - 
the different parishes and their clergy assembled in the Neder- 
land Hotel. Over 200 guests were present at the banquet. The fol- 
lowing were the speakers at the banquet :Fr. Stephen Makar and Con- 
st an tine Kirciv from the RUS'KIJ NARODNYJ SOJUZ ( Galician) . From 
the Uhro-Rusin group Fr. Cornelius Laurisin and the President of 
the Greek Catholic Union Sojedinenije Michael Yuhasz, Sr., who in 
his speach made the following remark:" Bishop, if you will be with 
us, all will be well, but if not, you will see what will happen". 
This rude remark sounded a very sour note among the guests of the 
banquet. This was the beginning of the struggle between Bishop So- 
ter Ortynsky and the Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholics. 

After the banquet Bishop Soter Ortynsky retired to his Hotel 
room, and was followed by a committee, to present him a welcom- 
ing gift. Fr. Cornelius Laurisin and Fr. Nicholas Csopey were the 
committee men. Only three of them were in the Bishop's room con- 
versing with the bishop. They were accused by the bishop of being 
Moscowphiles. Leaving the Bishop, they soon advised the Uhro-rusin- 
s, as to their conversation with the Bishop and what was said by 
the Bishop. "You are Moscowphiles, and I am a better RUSIN than - 
you are". With this remark they felt insulted and left. (Kalendar 
Providinia 1932 pp. 118-120) . 

So was the welcome of Bishop Soter Ortynsky described by Dr. S. 
Dencuk, told by Fr. Joseph Caplinky (Galician) , Fr, Nicholas Podho- 
recky of South Fork, Pa., invited Bishop Soter Ortynsky to South - 
Fork, Pa., to stay in his rectory. Shortely after the arrival to - 
South Fork, Pa., a visitor came to the rectory Paul Zsatkovics the 
editor of the organ SOJEDINENIJE the Amerikansky Russky Viestnik. 
Die advisors of the bishop, beforehand advised the bishop not to 
give editor Paul Zsatkovics an audience. Paul Zsatkovics left with 
an insulted feeling. This was the beginning of his battle against 
the Ukrainians. This battle grew larger and larger day by day, that 
the Bishop was forced to come out with a Pastoral Letter in Janua- 
ry 1908 to defend himself. In the Pastoral Letter he describes the 
evils done by those who are working against him, and that he is - 
continually reported to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D.C. 

In May 25, 1908 the "Sojedinenije" Fraternal Organization of 
the Greek Catholics had its Convention in Yonkers,N.Y. Bishop Sot- 
er Ortynsky was invited to celebrate a Divine Liturgy for the dele- 
gates. The Bishop accepted the invitation and on the appointed day 
had the Divine Liturgy. Many of the clergy and delegates did not - 
attend, to show their dissatisfaction and opposition to Bishop So- 
ter Ortynsky. 

In January 11, 1910 the Uhro-Rusins had a Convention in Johns- 
town, Pa, to stress church matters and the role of Bishop Soter Or- 
tynsky. At the Convention delegates were present from 44 parishes. 
After their many resolutions, they sent their delegated committees, 
to Bishop Soter Ortynsky to inform him personally that they decided 
that they do not want to be under his leadership, but under the 


jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Bishops, on account of his cle- 
rical, Ukrainian politics and his lack of care for the Uhro - Ru- 
sin Greek Rite Catholics. The situation day by day was getting - 
worst so that Metropolitan Septicky decided to come to the United 
States of America to reconcile both parties. 

Metropolitan Andrew Septicky arrived in the United States of 
America September 25, 1910, about that time the clergy had their 
conference in Harrisburg ,Pa, Metropolitan Andrew Septicky also 
took part. Out of the 63 clergymen 52 opposed Bishop Ortynsky . 
The Executive Committee wrote a memorandum to Rome concerning the. 
ir opposition to Bishop Soter Ortynsky, also decided not to sup- 
port his Ukrainian politics, parishes were to be informed : 

1. That in case of a vacancy in the parish, they not to turn 
to Bishop Soter Ortynsky, but to the Executive Committee :■ for a 

2 . Priests not opposed to Bishop Soter Ortynsky be vacated 
from the parish. 

3. Send letters of opposition to Bishop Soter Ortynsky, to 
the Apostolic Delegate in Washington D.C., and to the Latin Rite - 
Bishops, who are willing to accept all of us Greek Rite Catholics 
under their jurisdiction, if the church property will be deeded - 
in their trust. 

April 10,1912, Bishop Soter Ortynsky worked hard to introduce 
a CHARTER in the States, concerning the Greek Rite Catholic Chur- 
ches, but Fr. Nicholas Csopey and Fr. Cornelius Laurisin opposed 
this move and stopped it, but in 1914 it was introduced as a legal 
status of the Greek Rite Catholics. 

On August 30, 1911 the fourth anniversary of Bishop Soter Or- 
tynsky' s arrival in the United States of America, at a meeting in 
Scranton,Pa. , the Uhro-Rusins wrote a Memorandum consisting of 21 
complaints against Bishop Soter Ortynsky, signed by 48 priests 
and on January 1912 they sent a pamphlet to all the Roman Cathol- 
ic Bishops in the United States. In opposition to them on May 12, 
1912, 66 priests met in New York, N.Y., they too gave out a pamph- 
let defending Bishop Soter Ortynsky. 

Bishop Soter Ortynsky with the approval of the Apostolic Dele- 
gate of Washing ton, D. C. , SUSPENDED 48 of those priests who oppos- 
ed him. A meeting was called in this matter, but the Apostolic De- 
legate forbade them to have a meeting, therefore the meeting was 

Bishop Soter Ortynsky received full Episcopal powers, made - 
peace with the suspended priests and accepted them back in his ju- 
risdiction. This was not a total peace, because many members of 
the Greek Catholic Union were still meeting and debating what to 
do, stay with the Bishop or join Orthodoxy. 

In 1916 Bishop Soter Ortynsky began his mission work, giving - 
missions himself, and tolorating the attacks against him from the 

To clear the misunderstandings some explanation had to be gi- 
ven. The following was the explanation of the past: Our first na- 
tional ethnic name was from the times of Princedoms :RUS' ,RUS 'KIJ. 
When the Moscowites occupied the western and southern parts of Ki- 
ev territory by force, they took the name RUSS, RUSSIA, then the - 
leaders of the Kiev territory took up a name "UKRAINA, UKRAINIAN 
a name given them by the Germans, Bismark politics, this name was 


known in the XVIII century as OKRAINA. The fate of Galicia,Bukovi- 
na and Uhro-Rus' was different, the Name Ukrainian came to them - 
only in the XlXth century and it began to spread in the XXth cen- 
tury. In 1918-1919 after the disarmament of Austria-Hungary . be- 
tween the neighboring countries, they joined the Ukrainian State 
with its capital Kiev and forced the name on Uhro-Rus" in 1949. 

In 1939 after the second World War Russia named Galicia, Buko- 
vina, Prikarpatska Rus', and the southern part of the north eas- 
tern Carpathian Mountains PODKARPATSKA RUS 1 , Zakarpatska Rus'. The 
Name PODKARPATSKA RUS' is still used by the descendants of former 
Hungary. Regardless of explanations, the former Uhro-Rus ins still 
oppose the name UKRAINA, UKRAINIAN. 


IN 18 9 8 


The Greek Rite Catholic Uhro-Rusins immigrated from Hungary to 
the United States of America to find employment, for their better- 
ment. Right from the very beginning their thoughts were, how can 
they secure and practice their rite and discipline in this foreign 
land, and that something must be done soon to unite all the Greek 
Rite Catholic Rusins, because only through unity they can be suc- 
cessful in their goal of church matters. They came to a conclusion, 
that to have unity they must trust one person of the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church, who will provide for us independence, a bishop with 
Ordinary and full jurisdiction. 

In these matters we already have petitioned our Rus in Greek Ri- 
te Catholic European Bishops, to support our great desires through 
contacting the American Latin Rite Bishops, up to date we were not 
successful, all we have gained with our hard labor. This goal of 
ours could have been achieved at the time the Apostilic Delegate - 
Satoli, who called the clergy for a conference in September 1893. 
Fr. Nicephor Chanat of the Eparchy of Munkacs was selected to be 
a leader to unite all Greek Rite Catholics concernig the temporal 
Church activities. 

Fr. Nicephor Chanat accepted the leadership being convinced - 
that our hope demanded such moves, which awakened us to work for 
this timely goal. 

In the past four years we were urging each other in these mat- 
ters, and watering our desires with the water of hope, that when - 
time will come, we would receive the Holy Fathers kindness. 

In the past four years what did we gain ? Our situation remain- 
ed the same. We were deprived of our desires, by persons who did - 
not understand our language, conversation, who did not know of our 
Greek Rite, they were our enemies thretening to destroy us. A time- 
ly administrator of Church affairs had no power, he had to be satis- 
fied with a role of an agent, to interveen in great matters on both 
sides. The results were that he was a problematic value, because - 
the Latin Rite Bishops, paid no attention to our affairs, they on- 
ly belittled the values of our Greek Rite and discipline. 

We realized that to better our situation orders must come from 
Rome. We have petitioned Rome in these matters, but in vain. Our - 
European Bishops also worked for us, their results were the same , 
because Rome took the advice of egoistic information of the Latin 


Rite Bishops, in spite of our many rightful requests. They diplo- 
matically gave us to the arms of the Latin Rite Bishops, who were 
tearing us apart, this unwanted dangerous situation of hatred a- 
gainst the Latin Rite Bishops flared up at the Sojedinenije Con- 
vention held in Braddock,Pa, May 24-28,1697 amidst most bitter ex- 
pressions, criticism. 

TO understand our situation better, it is necessary to explain 
the following. He took an example of other religious groups, who 
organized Fraternal Organizations, and we too organized our Frater- 
nal Organization the "SOJEDINENIJE", an organization which had its 
Convention from time to time. 

At the Braddock,Pa. , Convention the delegates brought up the 
question of our religious, church life; what are we to do to bett- 
er our church matters, affairs ? 

It was resolved, that first of all we must seek help from our 
Austro-Hungarian Government, in which petition we to state all o- 
ur circumstances, complaint to get help in our miserable state . 
First of all to free us Greek Rite Catholics from the jurisdiction 
of the Latin Rite Hierarchy and to seek the help and protection of 
the Austro-Hungarian Government. 

We firmely hope and believe, that we will receive such protec- 
tion from the powerful Austro-Hungarian Government, in our strugg- 
le. We also hope that the Holy Father will not deny us our just - 
right, but will help us in our troubles hardships. 

We firmely believe that under the protection of the Austro-Hun- 
garian Government we will be successful in our goal to be self go- 
verned the only way to overcome the egoistic information and our 
own destruction. We also believe in a great justice of the Holy Fa- 
ther the Pope of Rome, that in our present sad situation, he will 
not let us down, but will be helpful to us. 

We hereby wish to describe our plight in the following manner: 

1. The best explanation of our ecclesiastical affairs we con- 
sider is, if we begin by describing our pitiful Church problems, 
with the history of establishing our churches, our dependence upon 
our European Bishops jurisdiction. There is no peace in our parish* 
es, we are tearing ourselves apart, not having a leader, not hav- 
ing parish boundries. 

Our first Greek Greek Rite Catholic parish church was built - 
in 1885 in Shenandoah, Pa. The first Greek Rite Catholic Pastor was 
Fr. John Voljansky, who was recalled to Europe. Soon after him ma- 
ny priests arrived from the Archeparchy of Lemberg, Peremysl, Mun- 
kacs and Eperjes Eparchies, who are functioning in the following - 
parishes : 

1. Brooklyn, N.Y. Fr. Theodore Demjanovics, Munkacs Eparchy. 

2. Ypunkers,N.Y. Fr. Acacius Kaminsky, Munkacs Eparchy. 

3. Buffalo, N.Y. Fr. Nestor Dmitrow, Lemberg Archeparchy. 

4. Ansonia, Conn. Anthony Bonce vsky, Peremysl Eparchy. 

5. Trenton N.J. Fr. John Csurgovics, Munkacs Eparchy. 

6. Perth Amboy,N.J. Fr. Nicholas Sztecovics, Munkacs Eparchy. 

7. Jersey City, N.J. Fr. Nicholas Pidhorecky, Peremysl Eparchy 

8. Passaic, N.J. Fr. Eugene Szatala, Munkacs Eparchy 

9. Philadelphia Pa.,Fr. Vladimir Deak OSBM , Hungary. 

10. Minersville,Pa. , Fr. John Hrabar, Munkacs Eparchy. 

11. May field, Pa. , Fr. Theophan Obuskevic Peremysl Eparchy. 

12. 01yphant,Pa. Fr. John Ardan, Peremysl Eparchy 


13. Scranton,Pa. , St John's Fr. Valentine Balogh,Munkacs Ep. 

14. Wilkes Barre,Pa., Fr. Co r nelius Illyasevits,Munkacs Ep. 

15. Kingston, Pa. , Fr. Vladimir Molcsanyi, Eperjes Ep. 

16. Freeland, Pa., Fr. Gabriel Martyak, Eperjes, Ep. 

17. Hazleton, Pa., St. John's, Fr. Victor Martyak, Eperjes Ep. 

18. Hazleton, Pa. , St. Mary's Fr. Eugene Volkay, Munkacs Ep. 

19. Audenride, Pa., Fr. Nicholas Molcsanyi, Eperjes Ep. 

20. Shamoken , Pa . , Fr. John Konstankevic , Peremysl Ep. 

21. Mt. Carmel,Pa., Fr. Stephen Makar, Permysl Ep. 

22. Shenandoah, Pa. , Fr. Conelius Laurisin, Munkacs Ep. 

23. Mahanoy City, Pa., Fr. Basil Volosin, Munkacs Ep. 

24. Lansford,Pa. , Fr. Anthony Hodobay, Eperjes Ep. 

25. Lindsy,Pa., Fr. John Szabo. Munkacs Ep. 

26. Ramey Pa., Fr. Cyril Gulovics OSBM, Hungary. 

27. Johns town, Pa. , Fr. Hilarion Dzubay, Munkacs Ep. 

28 . McKeesport ,Pa . , Duquesne ,Pa . Fr .Stephen Jackovics , Munkacs 

29. Pittsburgh, Pa. , Nicholas Stefanovic, Lvov, Archep. 

30. Braddock, Pa., Fr. Augustine Laurisin, Munkacs Ep. 

31. L«isering,Pa. Fr. Alexander Dzubay, Munkacs Ep. 

32. Cleveland, Ohio, St. John's. Dr .Simeon Szabo, Munkacs Ep. 

33. Cleveland, Ohio, St. Nicholas, Fr. Ireneus Ma tyaczko, Mun- 
kacs Ep. 

It is understood according our resolutions, it is better for us 
to organize our parishes, regardless of work involved. According - 
the Catholic Church Law, they cannot be organized without the consent 
of the local Bishop and his jurisdiction.. This was also decided in 
1884 at the IVth Baltimore, Md. Synod of the Latin Rite Catholics 
These stipulations were not sent to our Greek Rite Catholic Bish- 
ops in Europe. Most probably they were not sent to them, because - 
in 1884-1885 there was only one Greek Rite Catholic parish, there- 
fore the Greek Rite Catholics were unknown. 

Regardless of the present case, from the point of view of the 
instructions, they were gravely and unmercifully executed against 
the Greek Rite Catholics. The persecution was crowned, with the - 
refusal of the local Bishop to five jurisdictions to the Greek - 
Rite priests, because because they were married. 

We present this case for the simple reason, that the Latin Ri- 
te Bishops did not apply the same severty against the Latin Rite 
clergy in all matters to observe the Church law. Some of the La- 
tin Rite Bishops even stated, that the Greek Rite Catholic marri- 
ed clergy are causing a scandal among the Latin Rite faithful, who 
are not acustomed to married clergy. This situation they used and 
reasoned with, to write to Rome to recall the married Greek Rite 
Catholic clergy to Europe and to remind the Greek Rite Catholic 
Bishops to adhear to the principles of the Baltimore, Md. Synod 
Our European Bishops replied we do not have only a few celibate - 
priests, also stating that the married clergy in the United State 
s of America are doing fruitful work, furthermore the marriage of 
the clergy is an important main question of the Union with Rome, 
etc . etc . 

During these disputes our Greek Rite Catholic clergy petition- 
ed Rome three times asking help, because the Latin Rite Bishop- 
s would not give them jurisdiction. They also asked for an Apos- 
tolic Vicar, as no one wanted to solve their problems to do their 
missionary work. Some Latin Rite Bishops would not give any sort 


of permission, there were also some that would give them jurisdic - 
tion, but only under cer^tain conditions, which they could not ac- 
cept. Our European Greek Rite Catholic Bishops came out in defen- 
se of their priests who immigrated to the United States of Ameri- 
ca, still, in spite of their defense, the Roman See through, the 
Propaganda of Faith Congregation sent out orders to recall the - 
MARRIED CLERGY to Europe. Rome did not give any attention to our 
Greek Rite clergy until December 1892, letting the married clergy 
remain in the united States of America; forseeing the danger of 
Schism, but still insisting that the married clergy be exchanged 
for the celibates. n 

We would be very thakful especially to the grace of God, that 
in spite devilish daring persecution coining from the Latin Rite - 
Bishops, the Providence of God still keeps us living, and what is 
more we are growing daily in number. 

Necessity solved the problems without the intentions of the 
Latin Rite Bishops. They established parish after parish through- 
out the States and the faithful Greek Rite clergy progessed. 

A short explanation of the history of Schism is as follows: 

It is a known fact that Alaska and part of the Allutions we- 
re buoght by the United States of America from Russian Government - 
While these Islands were ruled by the Russian Government, so were 
Church matters by the Russian Synod, which was appointing the Bi- 
shops. There was one bishop appointed for the Alaskan territory - 
too , but later on the Bishops residence was transferred from Sitka 
to San Francisco, California, That bishop nor the Russian Ortho- 
dox Synod until 1891 did not know about the Greek Rite Catholic - 
Rusins, who immigrated from Austro-Hungary. 

In 1891 Fr. Alexius Toth, an Eparchial consul tor and profess- 
or of the Eparchy of Eperjes, when Archbishop John Ireland of St. 
Paul , Minnesota did not receive him as a priest, in his anger or 
conviction he went to the Russian Orthodox bishop in San Francis- 
co, California, presented himself and the parish in Minneapolis , 
Minnesota, to the bishop with a promise that others will follow. 

In those days the Latin Rite bishops were very rude to the - 
Greek Rite Catholic clergy, in some churches they were ordered to 
announce from the pulpit,"THAT TOE SO CALLED GREEK RITE CATHOLIC 
tions are invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. 

Among such circumstances Fr. Alexius Toth left the Catholic 
Church expecting others to follow him, but he was decieved in his 
hope, because the greatest majority of clergy and faithful Remain- 
ed faithful and firm in their faith. 

True, three priests followed him: Fr. Victor Toth (brother) - 
Eperjes Eparchy, who in a short time returned to Europe, repented 
and was accepted in the Greek Rite Catholic Church, the second - 
one was Fr. Michael Balogh, Scran ton, Diocese and Fr. George Hrus- 
ka of Lemberg Archeparchy. They too returned to the fold of the - 
Greek Rite Catholic Church. As for the faithful who accepted Ortho- 
doxy, religion was not their concern as much as the material bene- 
fits and promises by Fr. Alexius Toth and his agents. These agents 
worked hard with Fr. Alexius Toth. Whereever they found a church 
incorporated on Fr. Alexius Toth and his agents and the congrega- 
tion. This happened in Wilkes Barre,Pa., Osceola, Pa., Rendgram , 
Pa., but in such places most of the people remained faithful to 


the Catholic Church and built another church for themselves . The 
work of Fr. Alexius Toth and his agents would have been stopped 
if the Latin Rite bishops had stopped acting against our Greek 
Rite Catholic married clergy. 

2. The Latin Rite bishops with a small exception , has shown 
no respect and developed a great suspicion toward the Greek Rite 
Church Law and discipline. One of the Latin Rite Bishops forbade 
the Greek Rite Catholics to have a Mid-night service on Christ- 
mas day, because they did not have a Mid-night Mass. Another La- 
tin Rite bishop said I will give you (Greek Rite Catholic priest) 
jurisdiction ONLY if you give me a promise, that you will give - 
Holy Communion to your faithful ONLY IN ONE SPECIES. If we call 
a Latin Rite Bishcp to bless our church or cemetary, they alway- 
s delegate a Latin Rite priest to officiate, because they do not 
consider the blessing of a Greek Rite Catholic priest valid only 
that of a Latin Rite priest, as if the Greek Rite Catholic pri- 
ests prayers were less worthy than the one said by a Latin Rite 

All this disturbs our piety, devotions and feelings, which we 
have towards our beautiful Greek Rite, when we see the Latin Ri- 
te bishops and clergy trampling down on our belief and RITE. 

Many of the Latin Rite bishops forbade the Greek Rite Catho- 
lic priests to administer the SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION, to La- 
tinize them one by one. Whereas, these bishops knew that in the 
Greek Rite Catholic Church a priest is permitted to administer 
the Sacrament of Confirmation since Apostolic times , and the Sac- 
rament is valid. The clergy and the faithful stood fast by their 

1. The people could see the ill will and misleading, and - 
would not accept Confirmation from a Latin Rite bishop only from 
a Greek Rite Catholic priest. 

2. The greatest part of the Greek Rite Catholic Church pro- 
perty is not deeded in trust to the Latin Rite bishops, therefore 
they cannot order the Greek Rite Catholic clergy accordind their 
whim. These bishops are doing everything possible to gain control 
of the church property, to be able to vacate the Greek Rite Catho- 
lic priest, whenever they want to do so. 

3. Furthermore the constitution of the Union, all Decrees - 
and Papal Bullas testify to the rights of the Greek Rite Catholic- 
s and the Latin Rite bishops act as if these documents do not ex- 
ist. The Latin Rite bishops claim the documents of Union to be - 
territorial laws and exceptional privilehes. The Decrees and Bull- 
as of this nature refer only to the Eastern Church and not to the 
United States of America, therefore the United States of America 
they have no power. 

As for CELIBACY and MARRIED CLERGY, the Latin Rite bishops - 
are doing everything possible, especially not to have any married 
clergy in the United States of America. Setting up their own laws 
they state as follows : 

a) The priest whose wife is not living in the United States 
may receive jurisdiction only on the condition that he promise - 
not to bring his wife to the United States. 

b) If the priests wife is in the United States, he can get 
jurisdiction only if he sends wife and children to Europe, i.e. - 
live in a forced separation. 


c) The Latin Rite bishops succeeded in Rome, and Rome order- 
ed the Greek Rite Catholic Bishops not to to send any married pri- 
ests to the United States, only celebates. This STRANGULATION re- 
minds us of the Pharaos method used to destroy the captive Jews. 
Such an order means that the flock be without a shepherd, to join 
the Latin Rite . 

4. There are many mi-sunderstandings among the Latin Rite Bi- 
shops and clergy, who are continually opposing the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic clergy and faithful. On account of such reasons the Greek 
Rite Catholic clergy and faithful do not have any confidence in 
the Latin Rite bishops and clergy . Consequently we cannot deed o- 
ur churches property to the Latin Rite bishop in trust as it is - 
requested. They have their reasons and we have ours: 

a) We are somewhat afraid of a betrayal from the part of - 
the Latin Rite bishops. 

b) Secondly, according to the United States Law, if the 
church is deeded to the bishop, he is the overseer of the Proper- 
ty. The Latin Rite bishops want only single-celibate priests, 
which would lead us into a dangerous dilema, that we would not - 
be able to fill our parishes, because among the Greek Rite Catho- 
lics there are only a few celibates. Being without a priest will 
bring its consequences, Schism, heresy and some may go to the La- 
tin Rite, especially if their wife is of the Latin Rite.: Such 
moves would bring indifferentism among the people who could fill 

the roll of Socialists Anarchist etc. 

There is no doubt that the Greek Rite Catholics in the United 
States of America cannot live under sich conditions therefore it 
is for Rome to change this pittyful conditons and not by the La- 
tin Rite bishops , the Greek Rite Vicars . 

c) The Latin Rite bishops have no use for the Greek Rite - 
Catholic churches, they didnt bless them, did not visit them, ne- 
ver asked an annual report, never help them, they only were ac- 
cusing them in Rome and trying to get rid of the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholics in the United States. The people were aware that the 
Greek Rite Catholics built their churches and rectories without 
the Latin Rite bishops, they also got priests for themselves 
without the help of the Latin Rite bishops and made a great pro- 

5. The Bishops Vicar cannot be helpful to us, Rome is well 
aware of our circumstances and knows that our Greek Rite Cathol- 
ic people are spread out in many Latin Rite Dioceses , where we 
do not have our churches nor can we organize them on account of 
their small number, still we are growing. 

6. Our numbers testify to the truth of our proposition of 
the churches independence . There is not a year that a new church 
have not been built or organized. All that we posess is the re- 
sult of our ten year hard labor. We are growing and progessing. 

Our enemies are saying, that the Greek Rite Catholic faith- 
ful are only transients, i.e., inhabitants who have an intention 
to make money in the United States, with which they will return 
to Europe and live well. For such a people there is no advantage 
in building a church or having a Bishop See. The facts prove the 
circumstances much differently. In spite of hard times the numb- 
er of our people is not falling, instead through births it is 
growing. Invented stories decrease our peoples number, but our - 


existance and being, cannot be hidden. 

They are in such a great number that they need their own 
church authority. Rome had established a diocese here in the U- 
nited States for the Latin Rite Catholics. In the 50th year anni- 
versary of the Cleveland, Ohio Diocese, we can read in the circu- 
lar the following:" When Fr. Rape was ordained a bishop in the 
new diocese which had 42 churches and only 13 priests in the year 
of 1847, the number of the faithful was 10,000 souls. We too are 
Catholics loyal to the Pope of Rome as the Latin Rite Catholics, 
and Rome, and Rome is not treating us the same way as those who - 
have their own bishops not subjected to bishops of other Rites. 

7. True, that our Greek Rite Catholic faithful are spread 
out far and wide, but the present days communications and trans- 
portation shortens distance. Today there are so many Rail Roads , 
Street-cars , telephones, as no where else in the world. 

8. Finally it is necessary for us to explain why are we tur- 
ning with such a great confidence to the Austro-Hungarian Govern- 
ment for their help. The fact is known that the organizing of any 
Episcopal See, must have its canonical process. Empress and Queen 

Maria Terezia saw to it that the process of canonization of the 
Munkacs Eparchy was done. At that time in Rome the Queen's attor- 
ney defended the interests of the Greek Rite Catholics and defen- 
ded them from hostilities of the Eger bishop. Yes, Queen Maria - 
Terezia defended the Greek Rite Catholics with her private attor- 
nys and solved erroning questions for the benefit of our ancestor- 

History is the vechicle of life, that factor, which led us to 
turn to the Austro-Hungarian Government for help, which we hope 
to receive. 

In this humble petition of ours we have desctibed our pitti - 
ful and dangerous church plight, accountable to a pittiful truth. 
Truly our situation is a sorrowful one, but not a hop less one . 
We firmly believe that time will change all for us, for the bet- 
terment of our Church affairs. If we have leaders of our Rite, be- 
ing independent and fully empowered, we will not be destroyed in 
faith, rite and nationality. 

We hereby are humbly asking the Austro-Hungarian Government - 
to take in consideration our described plight and protect us with 
help. We believe that this our long struggle for our existance - 
will come soon to an end and bring victory to our Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church, which was trampled on, but it is still alive look- 
ing for a better future, which will reward us all for our hard- 
ship with sincere esteem, we also sent a copy of the above _ peti- 
tion to His Holiness the Pope of Rome 

With sincere esteem we are sincerely yours 
Fathers : 

Theodore Demjanovics Acacius Kaminszky 

John Csurgovics Nicholas Sztecovics 

Eugene Szatala Vladimir Deak ,0.S.B.M. 

John Hrabar Nicholas chanat 

Valentine Balogh Cornelius Illyasevits 

Vladimir Molcsanyi Gabriel Martyak 

Victor Martyak Eugene Volkay 

Nicholas Molcsanyi Cornelius Laurisin 

Basil Volosin Anthony Hodobay 


John SZabo Hilarion Hodobay 

Nestor Volensky Stephen Jackovics 

Augustine Laurisin Alexander Dzubay 

Dr. Simeon Szabo Ireneus Matyaczko 



CHURCH ADMINISTRATION . ARV. Aug . 10 ,1899 .p . 2 

After 20 years hardship and trials to our Greek Rite Catholic 
Rusin immegrants in America, we dare at present to step forward 
with our two great Organizations, the SOJEDINENIJE and the SOJUZ, 
both Fraternal Societies . We have established our churches , libra- 
ries, choirs. All this was done by a group of people to testify, 
that our nationality (ethnic group) is closely tied with our Greek 
Rite Catholic Church, which uses the Old-Slovanic language. May 
this close tie of national power be a link, to strenghten us in 
our faith. We the clergy decided to organize a Fraternal Society, 
which would unite us, not as in the past, but with a strenght we 
could work well for the good of our Rusin people. 

These are the wishes of our hearts and souls, which we set 
down at our meeting November 13th 1899 . We have the honor to share 
with you good living in the United States of America and Canada 
this joyes news, which we accomplished with the help of God and 
the good will of the clergy, when we organized a Society in Phila- 
delphia, Pa. The By-laws will be published August 1. 

At the meeting in Philadelphia, Pa., the following clergy were 

Theophan Obuskevic Theodore Demjanovics Eugene Szatala 
Cornelius Laurisin Gabriel Martyak Acacius Kaminsky 
John Szabo John Konstankevic Eugene Volkay 

Cornelius Illyasevits Nicholas Podhorecky Peter Keselyak 
Stephen Makar Nestor Volensky Nichols Stefanovic 
Cyril Gulovics Basil Volosin Anthony Boncevsky 
John Halyko John Ardan John Hrabar 

John Csurgovics Orestes Zloczky Victor Martyak 
Constantine Csucska, who delivered the address. Those priests who 
could not been present at the meeting, promised to agree with our 
resolutions by mail. The Society consists of 32 priests who hope 
to raise a great confidence in our people for the work of the so- 

We hereby are turning to you good people and presenting our re- 
solutions as follows : 

1. If some group of Rusins wish to build i church in their 
community, they are to approach the Society Council of Clergy, who 
in return will turn to the Society President for approval, which - 
petition may be approved or delayed. 

2. The same is to be done if they wish to have a priest. They 
must petition the Council, present their selected candidates by 
2/3 of vote at a parish meeting, or by the trustees. If it will be 
possible to appoint a priest from among those who are in the Unit- 
ed States, good and well, but if not, then the council will turn - 
to the European Ordinaries to send a priest from the chosen Epar - 
chy. The Council will recognize the peoples wish;but will reserve 



the right to approve and install a priest. Priests who accept a - 
parish position are permanent pastors, who without the consent of 
the Council may not leave or make a change without a valid reason 
as it was done in the past. 

3. Complaint against the priest by the people and vice versa 
must be sent to the President of the Council . Then a a commission 
will be sent out to hear both parties in order to make a just jud- 
gement . 

4. If a congregation is in need of a cantor, they must peti- 
tion the Coucil , and the Council will advertise a konkurs ( a com- 
petition of ability) and according the understanding of the priest 
and people, the commission will approve their candidate. 

5. Each congregation must have a RUSIN school, library, choir 
or a prescribed Plain Chant, a rectory and a Student Fund to help 
the poor student who wish to study in higher education. 

6. The church property must be deeded to the Congregation - 
and not only on the trustees, or a Fraternal Organization, nor to 
the Latin Rite Bishop. The Council will see to it, that the above 
regulation is introduced, and it will control the administration 
of the parish, and will publish the activities of every parish. 

7. To gain the full confidence of the people, the Coucil is 
prescribing statuttes according to which it will be able to judge 
church matters justly, to please the people and the priest. The 
Council is inviting delegates of all parishes to a meeting before 
the end of the year. Then it will explain all matters in particul- 
ar boundries etc. They will hear the requests of the Council, sta- 
tutes will be given each parish, to discus them at their yearly - 
meeting. Until the statutes will be accepted by all the parishes , 
our society is willing to cooperate and work with the people to - 
bring success for the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins in the United 
States of America. 

Untill the second meeting with the delegates of parishes, the 
Council will describe its program and resolutions in the newspaper. 

In the summer this will be followed with a Convention of cler- 
gy and delegates. The first day will be a meeting of clergy and de- 
legates and the second day only the clergy themselves . 

8. From now on collectors who are sent out by different pari- 
shes to collect for a new church, will not be approved by the lo- 
cal priest, because the practice proved that in many instances 
the church received very little benefit, only many quarrels and 

This order does not forbid collecting in Europe, but only in 
the United States of America. To help churches where their is no 
resident priest, it was decided to have a Mission Fund collection 
in each church. The method of mission fund could be resolved at - 
the Convention 

9. As much as our finances will permit us, the Society will 
publish religious pamphlets and newspaper. 

10. There are plans also to build a RUSIN IMMEGRANT HOME. 

11. In the later part of October each parish to send in a re- 
cord of its members in the following manner: 

1. Number of families ? 

2. Number of single (16 years and older) males and females 

3. The history of how the Congregation was oeganized,who - 


initiated the thought, the priest or layman ? 

4. Number of men whos wives are in Europe ? 

5. Number of children, boys and girls separately. 

6. How much was the price of the church lot ? 

7. How much is the outstanding debt, mortgage ? 

8. Amount of money in the church; treasury ? 

9. Inventory of church furniture ? 

10. If the rectory is the property of the church, how much - 
is its value ? 

11. If there is a RUSIN language school, how many cildren at- 
tend, boys and girls ? Name of teacher ? How much is his salary ? 

12 Have you a choir, library , political club ? 
13. Name your church Societies; who organized them; give their 
treasury report and number of members . 

14 What is the occupation of the parishioners ? 

15. How many Uhro-Rusins and how many Galician Rusins in your 
parish ? 

16. Name the territory from which your parishioners immigrat- 
ed, which is the closes city ? 

17 . Do our Rusins own their own homes ? Value ? 

18. How many business men belong to your church ? 

Please send in the above report not later than October 1st. 

This will able the Council to make a Directory for the year - 
1900 ( Schematismus) The following members are on the committee - 
of the Directory: Fr.s John Ardan, Peter Keselyak and Gabriel Mar- 
tyak. Our brothers in Canada should do likewise. Mr. Henik should 
describe their settlements , give a number of immigrants and Chur- 
ONE DELEGATE TO THE Convention. The same is requested from the Ru- 
sins in Brasil and Hawai. 

The Fathers who until now did not sign up in our Society, all 
asked to do so and send in the following declaration: 

I am a Greek Rite Catholic priest from the Eparchy of : 

born in": date : Celibate: ........Marri- 
ed: widower : have documents from your Bishop Or- 
dinary ..... arrived in the United States : 

did you present yourself to the local Latin Rite bishop ? 

Were you accepted or not : date : In howmany parishes 

are you functioning. How long are you stationed in the pre- 
sent parish ( address also) ? 

I hereby request acceptance to the SS. Cyril and Methodius 
Clergy Society. I am willing to accept the rules, regulations and 
decisions of the society . Signature : 

12. New members are to send in $5.00 initiation fee and $1.00 
monthly dues beginning August 1, 1899. Send the fee to Rev. Corne- 
lius 'Laurisin, Shenandoah , Pa . In other matters you may turn to the 
President of the Society. 

We are hereby asking editors of the A.R.Viestnik and Svoboda , 
to publish our news in their newspapers . 

We came from the people, we will live for the people and hold 
the people in unity as brothers from Hungary and Galicia in one 
camp. Because a Rusin mother gave us birth, nourished us, we are 
of the same religion, the Greek Rite Catholic Church, and will work 
for the greater glory of God, love our Church and her servants and 
the gates of hell will not prevail against it. 


God bless you all 

From the Council of the SS . Cyril and Methodius Clergy Society 
of the United States of America 

Mayfield, Pa., August 1, 1899. 

Rev. Theophan Obuskevic, Pres. 
Rev. Theodore Demjanovics,V.P. 
Rev. Cornelius Laurisin, Treas. 
Rev. Peter Keselyak, Sec. 
Consul tors : 

Rev . John Szabo. Rev. Gabriel Martyak, Rev. Nicholas Podhorec 

AUGUST 24, 1399. 

A. Orlov. 1899 "ARV. Aug. 24,1899 

At the end of 1891 Fr. Alexius Toth, who at that time a Greek 
Rite Catholic Uniate priest in Minneapolis, Minn., had to struggle 
with three grave problems , namely : 

1. To return to the Old-country. 

2. If not to resign from the priesthood and become a layman 
in the United States of America. 

3. To renounce his religion, accept another religion and con- 
tinue as a priest in that religion. 

The first two problems were very hard for Fr. Alexius Toth. 
He felt within himself, that he was not strong anough to wrestle - 
with them consequently he choose the third, renounced his religion, 
accepted another in which he can function and live in peace as a 

With this purpose in mind, he set out for San Francisco, Cal . 
He met with the Orthodox Bishop, presenting him his serious desire, 
i.e. that he wished to become a Russian Orthodox . Asserting that - 
he had great influence among the Rusin people, he stated that in 
a short time the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins including their priest- 
s will support his desires, etc. etc. 

When he arrived in Minneapolis, Minn, he advised the trustees 
and ushers, on whose name the church was deeded, to follow him. He 
in return placed the Minneapolis, Minn. Greek Rite Catholic Church 
in the hands of the Orthodox Bishop. 

It is understood that the Orthodox did not know about the cir- 
cumstances, hardship and desperation, which forced Fr. Alexius Toth 
to him. The Bishop happily accepted him and appointed him as a Pas- 
tor of the Minneapolis, Minn, church, which Fr. Alexius Toth had 
before hand cleverly secured for himself. 

Fr. Alexius Toth thought over his plans well. They were excell- 
ent from the point of view of his personal egoistic interests , but 
very burdensome for realization. He was well aware of the weakness 
of the Rusin people, and this reason persuaded him, that these - 
people are of little faith, who like to listen to all kinds of sto- 
ries, and for a promise will do anything, not being firm in faith 
and nationality. By such a special knowledge he depended on rich 
financial help from his new Superiors. He had great hope to carry 
over all the Uhro- Rusins and the Galicians to Orthodoxy. It was al- 
so understood that a great reward will follow, a Bishop's crown 
will shine on his deserving head. 


All this was to happen for him through the Rusin Greek Rite 
Catholic people. What happened later, is known to the public. All 
kinds of agents moved in among the Greek Rite Catholic people en- 
tertaining them with promises, dulling their good will, which was 
seeking spiritual and material betterment. Through the persuasion 
of the agitators, men fell not only temporarily, but for their - 
whole life into Orthodoxy, a step which brought for them misunder- 
standings, hatred, demoralization etc., 

Fr. Alexius Toth in his campain of leadership and directives, 
did not forget to have his glorification hymn sung in the newspa- 
pers, i.e. that he is capturing the Greek Rite Catholic souls for 
Orthodoxy. His Superiors also praised him and rewarded him with - 
Russian rubels, of which he requested more and more. Rewards were 
pouring in for him, but no episcopal crown. Only three priests jo- 
ined Orthodoxy and many laymen. Fr. Alexius Toth was forced with - 
a sorrowful heart to acknowledge, that the Greek Rite Catholic Ru- 
sins are not of a weak faith as he had considered them to be in - 
the past. Fr. Alexius Toth began to condemn the people for this - 
attitude. He tried to convince a former national leader, owner of 
a cigar factory in New Jersey, Jersey City, to renounce his reli- 
gion, to separate himself from his parents, brothers, sisters, wife 
and children forever and his country, but to no avail. 

In his anger Fr. Alexius Toth continued to blacken and condemn 
the Greek Rite clergy, institutions and their firm desires. In the 
Slovanic newspapers, in which his articles appeared, misleading the 
people and authorities, he stated that the Greek Rite Catholic peop- 
le are demoralized , that the Union with Rome is nearing to its end 
He proudly said, I am holding the net into which all the Greek Rite 
Catholic clergy and faithful will fall. So was Fr. Alexius Toth - 
blowing his horn for the past eight years , a comedy for which Fr . 
Alexius Toth was collecting thousands and thousands of rubles. Yes, 
the so-called demoralized clergy and faithful according Fr. Alexi- 
us Toth were building churches, schools, rectories, libraries , - 
choirs, working hard for their spiritual and material security and 
the honor of the name RUSIN. Not being ashamed to be called Rusin, 
Rusiny, but they prided themselves in their Rusin name. They are - 
continuing to do this without any reward of Russian rubels, only of 
love and devotedness of their Greek Rite Catholic religion and Ru- 
sin nationality. In this interest they were and are working hard 
without fear of their enemies and adverseries. 

It was rumored that Fr. Alexius Toth was getting tired of his 
mission work, he only sat silently on the top of his hill. Yes ,- 
lately his fate began to turn and be revengeful, and unmerciful - 
upon his progress, false prophesies, endangering the success of 
his great plans. And all this is opening the eyos of his Superi- 
ors, who from the beginning doubted that the mission success is - 
as it was presented by Fr. Alexius Toth and his associates in the 
Orthodox Camp. Even those yearly thousands and thousands of rubel- 
s were pouring to gain the goal of Orthodoxy the results were con- 
trary to his goal. 

The first blow of fate came, when Fr. Victor Toth, his brother 
returned to Europe and renounced Orthodoxy, did penance for his - 
error and was reaccepted to the Greek Rite Catholic Church, as a 
Uniate priest. He was followed by Fr. Michael Balogh, whom he con- 
vinced to leave the Uniate parish in Bridgeport, Conn, and to enter 


Orthodoxy. He too returned to the Greek Rite Catholic Church, cor- 
recting his error by doing penance. He returned to the Catholic 
Church in Wilkes Barre,Pa, where, during the Divine Liturgy he re- 
nounced Orthodoxy, condemned Schism and his false statements made 
and written about the Catholic Church. In anger Fr. Alexius Toth 
tore up the law suit process, which was brought against him by the 
Greek Rite Catholics of Wilkes Barre,Pa., to secure their church 
properties, which were very cleverly usurped by the Orthodox agent- 
s . The Court decision was that the whole property belongs to the - 
Greek Rite Catholic Uniates..The end is not too far. Soon Fr Alex- 
ius Toth will have to descend from his hill . In Bridgeport ,Conn . 
the faithful are demanding a return to the Uniate Church. There is 
trouble also in Old Forge, Pa., where the people built a new church 
next to the old one, which was taken over by Fr. Alexius Toth and 
his agents. Only a few remained in the Orthodox church, whose pri- 
est was an Ukrainian hetman, a reformed Moscowite, and a great mo- 
ralist, Fr. G. Hruska, who is just about holding a few families . 
There is trouble in Allegheny, Pa. , and other places, people are re- 
turning to their former Church. 

A greater blow came for the great plans of Fr. Alexius Toth, 
when the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin clergy organized a society for 
the purpose of defending and securing the honor of priesthood 
which Fr. Alexius Toth was trying to destroy with every move of - 

We are certain that the work, tyrany, which is harmful for the 
people will soon disappear. Thanks be to God the people began to 
fight for their Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

It is a pity that Russian rubels were spent to destroy che Ru- 
sin people. Fr . Alexius Toth's personal egoistic interests caused 
all the trouble for the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins in the United 
States of America 


ARV . April 4,1902 

For many years we worked hard on our church affairs to make - 
order and finally received something to reach the desired progress . 

Church and Civil authorities paid attention to our petitions - 
and propositions dispite the enemies intrigue, who tried to fool 
the world that we will never succeed in our hard work. 

The deeds of ours brought fruit. Now we are in such a position 
that we can announce to the whole Rus ' of America, not as a report 
but as a fact ( for which we can thank God) , that we have our own 
Vicar, who will make order in our Church affairs. 

According to our corespondance from the Bishop of the Eperjes 
Eparchy No. 1030, he informs us, that the Vicar for the Greek Rite 
Catholics in the United States of America is appointed: namely Ca- 
non Andrew Hodobay of the Eperjes Eparchy, and Fr. John Korotnoky 
who is appointed to the Allegheny , Pa. , parish is accompaning him. 
They are leaving April 15, 1902 and will arrive April 23,1902. 

The biography of Canon Andrew Hodobay is as follows : Born in 
TORISKA, Sepes County August 11, 1852, ordained December 18, 1878. 
In January 28, 1879 appointed pastor in Homorod, where he merit- 
ed the dignity of becoming a Dean. The European newspapers discri- 
be him as a meek person by nature. May God bless him to arrive sa- 
fely and grant him energy in his future task. 



OF AMERICA. ^ May 8 , 1902 .pp. i-2 . 

The request of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins is fulfilled Ca- 
non Andrew Hodobay is appointed as an Apostolic Visitator for the 
Greek Rite Catholics in the United States of America. He arrived 
and is in our midst at present. 

The Vicar boarded in Bremen the " Kronprinc Wilhelm" ship and 
arrived in Hoboken, N. J. , April 29, 1902. He was welcomed by Fr.s: 
Cornelius Illyasevits, Brooklyn, N. Y. , Nicholas Molcsanyi , Passa- 
ic, N.J., John Halyko, Hazleton,Pa. , and A.B. Bessenyei, secreta- 
ry of the Fraternal Organization Sojedineni je. 

The Vicar was accompanied by his secretary Fr. John Korotnoky 
a talented young priest of the Eperjes Eparchy. A great task is a- 
waiting the Vicar to make order in the churches, spiritual and ma- 
terial matters, to make progress for the one quarter million of 
Greek Rite Catholics. 

After the mutual greetings, the Vicar travelled to Brooklyn, N. 
Y., invited by Fr. Cornelius Illyasevits to take a rest from his 
travells . 

The same day in the evening the following clergy paid a visit 
to the Vicar: Fr.s: Anthony Kecskes , Perth Amboy, N.J., Acacius 
Kaminsky, Yonkers, N.Y., and the editor of the A.R. Viestnik 
Paul Zsatkovics. They welcomed the newly arrived Vicar. In their 
conversation the Vicar was speaking openly, an attitude which - 
convinced the guests that the Vicar is devote and practical a 
well educated person in whom we can trust and he will bring order 
for us in our parish affairs which are in a very pitiful condi- 
tion. In him we saw a fearless fighter and defender of our Greek 
Rite Catholic Church. 

After his rest May 4, 1902 the Vicar visited the Passaic,N.J, 
parish. Sunday he celebrated the Divine Liturgy in Brooklyn, N. Y. , 
delivered a sermon. After the Divine Liturgy a parish meeting was 
held, where he became acquainted with parish affairs. He advised 
the faithful and especially the trustees and ushers , how they are 
to work to bring order, goodwill and understanding in the parish. 

May 20, 1902 the Vicar invited the clergy to Brooklyn, N.Y. for 
a consultation about the conditions of the churches and parishes 
in the United States of America. 

On June 6, 1902 the Vicar visited parishes in the Pittsburgh 
Pa, area, where he had some success in solving long standing prob- 

Canon Andrew Hodobay was born in Toriska, Sepes County august 
11, 1852. In a priestly family, he was the youngest of seven child- 
ren. Educated in Locse (Levoca) and Nagy Varad, he pursued theolo- 
gical studies in Esztergom and Budapest Seminaries. He was a bril- 
liant student, as the late Cardinal John Simora of Esztergom said: 
"Andrew was the best student in the seminary". Returning to the 
Eperjes Eparchy was appointed a School Inspector of the Eparchy . 
He married Miss Helen Rojkovics the daughter of Canon Alexander - 
Rojkovics. Ordained in 1878, he was appointed in 1882 assistant - 
pastor of the Eperjes Cathedral church. Soon Bishop Nicholas - 
Toth appointed him to Homrod, Abauj County parish, where he made 
great strides. His wife died in 1888 leaving him with two child- 
ren; Alexander became an attorney and Melanie his daughter. 


In 1892 he became a Dean of the district. In 1900 a candidate - 
for the Parliament from the Szikszo district opposing Pecsi Tamas, 
he lost the candidacy by 200 votes. In 1900 he became a Canon in 
the Eperjes Chapter, successor to Canon Kotratov rector of the se- 
minary. In 1902 was appointed Apostolic Visitator for the Greek - 
Rite Catholics in the United States of America. 


TO BROOKLYN, N.Y. 1902. 

Letter. May 1902 

In May 21, 1902 there was a consultation held in Brooklyn, N.Y. 
Our clergy were inspired by the importance of the meeting and they 
all were present except Fr.s : Nicholas Sztecovics of Pleasant - 
City, Ohio, Michael Balogh, Trauger,Pa., Nestor Vo lens zky,. Youngs -- : 
town, Ohio, Emil Seregelyi, Globeville, Colorado and Ireneus Ma- 
tyaczko, Cleveland, Ohio. Their health and circumstances did not 
permit them to be present. On the 24th of May 32 clergymen met 24 
from the Munkacs Eparchy , 8 from the Eperjes Eparchy. At 9.00 A. 
M.a Divine Liturgy was celebrated by the Visitator Andrew Hodobay 
concelebrated with Fr. Orestes Zloczky and Fr. John Korotnoky. 

At the church hall a meeting commenced with a prayer "Carju - 
nebesnyj". Fr. Valentine Balogh welcomed the Visitator placing all 
our church matters into his hands and leadership, assuring him of 
their cooperation in the church affairs, regardless from which E- 
parchy the clergy came. 

The Apostolic Visitator replied with fatherly love, expressing 
his thanks for the welcome. 

The true fatherly words of the Visitator, made a grave impres- 
sion on all present, feeling the warmth of his heart and confiden- 
ce, that his arrival brought a natural leader, who will lead us to 
a better future. 

The goal of the first meeting was : 

1. That he personally presented himself to the clergy. 

2. That he consult with the clergy about matters, which will 
be necessary to know, to make order in the church life, to strengh- 
ten the people in their faith and love. 

The meeting followed the above given instructions. The Visita- 
tor appointed a Commission, namely Fr.s: Anthony Kecskes, Alexan- 
der Dzubay, Cornelius Laurisin, Gabriel Martyak, Julius Csucska - 
and Peter Keselyak as Consultors . 

The short meeting was concluded at 1.30 P.M., followed by a 
dinner in the "Coffe Martine" Hotel, corner of 26th Street New - 
York,N.Y., honoring the Visitator. At this dinner there was pre- 
sent the Austro-Hungarian Consul General Thomas Dezsofy of N.Y.C. 
This was the first occasion that the Austro-Hungarian Consul Gene- 
ral attended one of our affairs . This honor was given to the Hun- 
harians, through the intercession of Hungarian Jews. Even in this 
we saw a better future in the United States of America for the Gre- 
ek Rite Catholics from Austro-Hungary . 

The Consul General reminded the clergy, that the great work of 
the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins , is not finished with the appoint- 
ment of the Apostolic Visitator, we must put our strenght togeth- 
er and work hard for a better future. 

Fr. Gabriel Martyak, who noticed that at present there is no 
difference between the clergy from the Munkacs and Eperjes Eparchy 


wished that there be no differences no conflict, misunderstanding 
only brotherly collegiality and love, which will bring a new life 
to us and great success . 

At. 7.00 P.M. the Visitator concluded the meeting with a pray- 


• Svoboda" June 12, 1902, p. 2. 

The Hungarian Greek Rite Catholic Visitator is beginning to - 
act, but still did not declare himself to be a RUSIN. 

The A.R.Viestnik is well aware of this. In two of its articles 
is couragesly judgeing him, who is using the name Greek Rite Cath- 
olic, but never uses the word RUSIN, RUS'KIJ, and does not dare 
to proclaim himself a Hungarian although he is from Hungary. From 
time to time we will inform the public about his exploits. True the 
news will not be of first class source, because the Visitator is 
concerned only with the Uhro-Rusins. The first clergy meeting with 
the Visiator was called for May 12, 1902, in Brooklyn, N.Y. Most of 
the clergy were present, five did not attend. 



SVOBODA, June 19, 1902 .p. 2. 

We found out from a good source about the Brooklyn, N.Y. meet- 
ing held under the Chairmanship of the Hungarian Visitator. A 
strange meeting only clergymen were present, no laymen, not even 
the Editor of the A.R.Viestnik, the language of the meeting was 

Fr. Andrew Hodobay did not produce any documents to the cler- 
gy to prove that he is authorized to do a Visitators work, he only 
mentioned saying, you may have hope that in the near future you 
may have a bishop. 

Fr. Cornelius Laurisin attended the meeting, whereas he was 
advised by the Roman Catholic Archbishop Patrick J. Ryan of Phila- 
delphia, Pa., not to attend. 

Right from the very beginning the Visitator turned to Fr. Cor- 
nelius Laurisin saying: Fr. Laurisin is it true that you were a- 
gainst my appointment to be a Visitator ? The reply was : I never 
said it. But you said, that I do not have any authority over the 
Galician clergy, and this induced you to write to Metropolitan An- 
drew Septicky to find out about my status June 2, 1902. 



SVOBODA July 24, 1902. p.l. 

The program is as follows: Fr. Andrew Hodobay announces the 
Statutes of the self government of the Greek Rite Catholics in 
the United States of America. The Statuts are read by Fr. Corneli- 
us Laurisin. One of the delegates proposed to publish the Statut- 
es in the newspapers and send a copy to each parish as a program 


of the meeting. 

Fr. Gabriel Martyak propsed to make some corrections in the - 
statutes and announce them at a following meeting. 

July 31,1902. p. 4. SVOBODA. 

Fr. Andrew Hodobay carefully replied as follows: 

1. The Visitator was sent by the Hungarian Government and 
the Apostolic See, which advised him to collect information about 
the conditions in the United States of America. 

2. I have no jurisdiction, only a bishop is enpowered with 

3 . All the Greek Rite Catholics regardless of their territo- 
rial descent are given to my care. 

4 . I was to take into consideration the political views of 
Galician clergy. 

5. I am not to make any difference between the Galician and 
Uhro-Rusins, both are to accept me as their own. 

After the above mentioned Fr. Dimitrov replied: All the repli- 
es are diplomatic and give only partial satisfaction. In which - 
language will the Statutes be printed : Fr. Andrew Hodobay :In the 

AUGUST 6, 1902. p. 4. 

NOTE. The Galician Metropolitan is beginning to think about - 
the fate of the Rusin Greek Rite Catholic Church in the United - 
States of America. What is he thinking, we do not know. The only 
thing we know that since his installation in the St. George's Ca- 
thedral, he sent to the United States of America ONLY a few Basi- 
lian monks, but not one eparchial priest. It seems to us, that he 
would rather recall some of our priests working in the United Sta- 
tes of America. 

(Fr. Andrew Septicky became a Bishop in Stanislav in 1899 ,a 
Metropolitan in Lvov in 1900. 



A.R.Viestnik July 4, 1902, p. 2 
By; Michael Yuhasz,Sr. 

Our Fraternal Organization " SOJEDINENIJE" is protesting in - 
the name of all the Greek Rite Catholic people against the action- 
s of the Visitator. 

Our "SOJEDINENIJE" right from the very beginning cooperated - 
and worked hard to have a church authority, for the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Rusin people in the United States of America. An authority 
which would control and make order in Church matters at other na- 
tional groups, who are well organized by their authority in the 
United States of America. 



it was resolved to be firm in our decisions concerning Church mat- 
ters. It was also resolved that the officials of the "Sojedine- 
nije" prepare a firm memorandum, one be sent to the Austro-Hunga- 
rian Government and the other to the Holy Father in Pome . 

The Memorandum of the Church situation explaining the intrigu- 
es of the Latin Rite Bishops of the United States of America, to 
the Holy See will be a proof of a great need for our own Church 
authority. Such reasons compelled us to petition the Austro-Hun- 
garian Government, who are greatly interested in our Church af- 
fairs , to help us in our great need through their diplomatic cha- 
nels in Rome. 

The Austro-Hungarian Government accepted our petition, have 
done everything that was possible that the quarter million Austro- 
Hungarian immigrants of the Greek Rite Catholic Faith have their 
desires fulfilled in the United States of America. 

But, the efforts of the Austro-Hungarian Government were not 
all successful to have the desired progress. Rome still did not 
deem it necessary to appoint a bishop or a Vicar for the Greek Ri- 
te Catholics, agreed to send only an Apostolic Visitator. 

An Apostolic Visitator is not a Church authority, only, one 
who becomes an intermediator among the Latin Rite Bishops and the 
Greek Rite Catholic clergy and faithful in Church matters. He is 
subjected to every Latin Rite Bishop. Such a situation lasts only 
temporarily, i.e., untill the Apostolic Visitator collects all - 
the data of the Church life and affairs are so developed that 
there is a need for a bishop or a Vicar to be self governed grown- 
up, or vice versa. 

We are very much suprised that the Apostolic Visitator up to 
date did not produce any fundamental work in matters concerned 
The people wonder if the Apostolic Visitator has any authority in 
our matters, since he did not publish, inform the people about 
his work, nor did he ask any advise from the people. He is silent 
in these matters as if everything is being well done. Saying that 
in Church matters he is independent from the people, is as to say 
the people are to be ignored, they have no right to mix in Church 
affairs. These people built churches, rectories, schools for the- 
ir own money and are supporting the priests financially. It seems 
as if the people and clergy gave up their rights, became his sub- 
jects as it is in the Old-country. These people's rights are to 
pay, support, be silent and obey, etc... 

In the Old-country if a Lord or some person financially sup- 
porte- the church, became a Patron, he even had the right to have 
the priest of his choice appointed to a parish. 

Lately a movement began for an autonomous administration 
that the laity are to take part in church affairs with the pri- 
ests, to become a stronger fort for the defence of the Church. The 
clergy and the laity are inspired by such a administration to 
stand up and be ready to defend the Church. 

The Catholic Hierarchy was persuaded not to oppose such an au- 
tonomy, but to support it. The sooner the better, it will be for 
the good of the Church. 

In the land of the free it would be redicolous to support and 
work for a cause without representation. 

What do the activities of our Visitator prove to us ? 

That up to date he did not publish any information, which would 


assure the people of a progress. He is noted only for accepting - 
bows if- he visits a parish, where he speaks to the people, but 
not about Chuich affairs.. In his sermons his topic is humility , 
kindness and obedience., which have a moral value, but nothing, a- 
bout the security, progress and administration of the church. 

The latest news are that the Apostolic Visitators ' intentions 
are to ignore the laity totally concerning the Church matters . 

The chosen Fr. Cornelius Laurisin is an alert expert and ta- 
lented person in business, whos project the Apostolic Visitator 
accepted to build a residence in Providence, Pa., near Scranton , 
Pa. The lots are beautiful for the Purpose. The Visitator was for- 
tunate to buy them cheap for only $20,000.00 and deeded the lots 
on his own nane and Fr . Cornelius Laurisins name. The people will 
have to pay for the lots and building. 

The Visitator sent a letter to each priest informing him that 
on July 22nd there will be a meeting in Scranton, Pa. , each priest 
is to be present with one delegate from his parish.. The program 
of the meeting is: How much each parish will be assessed concern- 
ing the residential project, and other matters will be also stres- 

How can the people accept such a tactless childish program - 
from the Visitator. There is no order concerning our churches pa- 
rishes, but the lots are bought to build a residence, awaiting - 
the financial support from the people. The people will not support 
such orders. 

We are not accusing the Visitator, nor are we trying to of- 
fend him, we only feel sorry for him, that he became a victim of 
clever speculators. 

Such a move is inciting danger for the people and their child- 
ren and also for the future of the parish. The Sojedinenije which 
has a close contact with the churches and people, who are members 
of the Fraternal Organization cannot overlook such indifferent mo- 
ve in church affairs. 

The officers of the Sojedinenije are sending out a circular: 


Our " SOJEDINENIJE" is a religious and national ethnic organi- 
zation of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins , which always strived - 
for progress of our ecclesiastical affairs here in the United Sta- 
tes of America. Since we are among different religions and natio- 

This care and anciety of our Sojedinenije inspired us, to give 
our people the right instructions through our Fraternal Organiza- 
tion, especially for the Greek Rite Catholic faithful who are mem- 
bers of the Sojedinenije. In what measure should they adopt them- 
selves to the orders of the Visitator. May they not become indif- 
ferent, careless in such matters and loose their rights which are 
theirs. Here the people finance all matters, consequently the peo- 
ple are the Patrons of each church, congregation. 

True, our wish was to have a bishop, but Rome decided otherwi- 
se, i.e., to have a Visitator only, who has no Church authority , 
he is only a intermediator between the Roman Catholic Bishops and 
our clergy and laity. The Visitator is subject to the Latin Rite 


Bishops in all church matters. By a good Visitatorship and the go- 
od will of the people some times the Visitator may become a Bish- 

Frankly speaking, we do not know what authority he has, who - 
gave it to him ? This was never published, nor was his installa- 
tion, or did he present the document of nomination by the Church 

We only know, that the Visitator visited a few parishes, held 
two meetings with the clergy, one in Brooklyn, N. Y. , and the other 
in Johnstown, Pa. What was decided at these meetings we do not - 
know. We know that at the Brooklyn, N. Y. , meeting somekind of a 
self government lecture was presented in which the rights of the 
people are described in church matters , which were to be studied 
by the Visitator and his advisors, and to be publicized in the A. 
R.Viestnik. To the present day nothing happened. At the Johnstown, 
Pa. , meeting it was resolved to destroy the Sojedinenije and to - 
organize another Society, led by the Visitator. 

We also heard that the Visitator is supported financially by 
the Government of Hungary and authorized to function as an overse- 
er of the clergy and faithful, to be respected as a bishop. 

It is known that the Visitator speaks as if he would be a Bi- 
shop. Has he any right to do so, we do not know. 

Yes, the Visitator is doing something, without the knowledge 
of the people, the patrons of the churches, whereas the people 
should know what is going on. All this is harmful to the right of 
the people, of which right they cannot be deprived. In the Unit- 
ed States of America the Greek Rite Catholic faithful must have 
a self government, administration. If they are supporting the - 
church, they have the right to the administration, letting no ad- 
ministrator, or some one else to administrate their affairs . 

The main office of the Sojedinenije is turning to the people 
in these matters. The newest order of the Visitator compells us 
to do so. The Visitator is ignoring the rights of the people. The 
officials of the main office of the Sojedinenije feel, that it is 
their obligation to inform the people whats going on to know how 
to act in time. 

The matter in concern is : 

The Visitator himself do not know, who is he in the United - 
States of America. He has visited a few parishes, in his reports 
he could not give a just report of the circumstances, still, he - 
already bought six lots with a few small buildings in the Scran- 
ton, Pa., territory for #20,000.00. Upon these lots Episcopal resi- 
dence to be built and furnished. 

The lots are deeded in the Visitators and Fr. Cornelius Lauri- 
sins name. The people would not object to this deal if the twenty- 
thousands would been paid by the Visitator Andre Hodobay and Fr. 
Cornelius Laurisin. But they are expecting the people to pay for 
all. In other words we are speaking about $50-60,000.00 which the 
people have to pay. If the people have to pay, then they have the 
right to stress the matter involved. 

1. The people must know, what is the Visitatorship, is it - 
temporary or not. 

2. Before the people give their money they must be assured 
of their church rights, through statutes, compiled by the clergy 
and laity. 


3. All the parishes must unite, form a corporation CHARTER 
with the necessary number of trustees. 

When all this is done, then we can talk about buying, build- 
ing, furnishing the residence, not any earlier. Then the people 
will decide, where to buy the land, which will be deeded, not on 
the name of the Visitator nor Fr. Cornelius Laurisin, but on the 
Greek Catholic Corporation- 

But all this is done by the Visitator at the advice of Fr. Cor- 
nelius Laurisin, who is a known "businesman" to accomplish all 
this, there is the question of the finances. 

In this matter the Visitator sent a letter to all the clergy - 
in which he is inviting the priests and one delegate from each pa- 
rish for July 22 tc meet in Scranton,Pa. There the project will - 
be stressed, how will each church be taxed to pay for the lots 
bought in Providence, Pa. , and for the episcopal residence. 

Such a move of the Visitator is not timely, nor orderly, not 
legal in such a grave matter . 

The main office of the Sojedinenije, in the name of the member- 
s of the Sojedinenije and the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin people pub- 
licly are protesting against such a move. 

1. The buying of the land for the residence is too early, be- 
cause up to date the Visitator Andrew Hodobay did not produce a 
document that he is any kind of a church authority. 

2. The people were not told about the project and do not ca- 
re to know. 

3. The self government of the church affairs is still not de- 
cided nor introduced, consequently there is no corporation of the 
Greek Rite Catholics, nor a person for whom to buy it. 

4. Such property cannot be deeded on the Visitator, Fr. Cor- 
nelius Laurisin, because, God forbid if one of them would die , 
then their descendants have a legal right to claim the property . 
Fr. Visitator Andrew Hodobay has children in the Old-country and 
Fr. Cornelius has a wife and family. The United States law says, 
that the property of the deceased goes to the descendants, conse- 
quently the process of the people would be in vain. 

5. Therefore such a meeting is useless, worthless. 

6. The meeting is called about the lots that are bought, 
which are not in about the center of the territory where our peop- 
le live, nor easily reached. 

Consequently we are protesting against this meeting, let all 
the parishes contact the Visitator to postpone the meeting, with 
the following remarks: 

1. From each parish two delegates be present at the meeting. 

2. From each Greeek Rite Catholic Society one delegate. 

If the Visitator delays the meeting, then in the meantime a 
program is to be made and sent out to all concerned a week before 
the meeting to know what will be stressed at the meeting. 

If the Visitator will make a move in such a direction, then he 
can be assured of a progress, so will the people be assured that - 
something is being done for the. good of our Church and people and 
the descendants will gladly bring a sacrifice for such a cause. 

Send such delegates to the meeting, who are practical people , 
who love their religion and rite and are willing to acquaint them- 
selves with the church affairs. It would be good to have United - 
States citizens or older Americans as delegates, who know some- 


thing about the way of life, and are expecting to remain in the - 
United States of America. Those who came to the United States of 
America for a time being, will not be interested in our church af- 
fairs. By sending this circular we wish to serve our people and - 
the Visitator. 

Such meeting are costly, do your best, to make it worth the - 

With brotherly respect 

Michael Yuhasz Sr. , President 
Bradenville,Pa. , July 10,1902 

Nicholas Pachuta, Secretary 



These Minutes were taken in Harrisburg,Pa, December 16,1902 , 
at a meeting of the immigrant Greek Rite Catholic Clergy of the - 
Munkacs Eparchy living in the United States of America. The fol- 
lowing were present: Fr.s: Cornelius Laurisin, Eugene Szatala , 
Eugene Volkay, John Szabo, John Hrabar, Basil Volosin, Alexius Ho- 
lozsnyay, Julius Medvecky, Victor Popovic, Julius Csucska, Antho- 
ny Izay and Alexius Novak. 

The meeting commenced with the usual prayer. 

Fr. Cornelius Laurisin, Chairman and Fr. Alexius Holozsnyay , 
secretary were asked to accept their appointed position. 

The Chairma explained the reason why was this meeting called 
We came here to protest and reply to our b Dthers of the . Eperjes 
Eparchy, against the unjust attacks against us. 

On the 25th of November 1902 a small group of the American Ru- 
sin clergy, which group names itself "Eperjes Clergy". They with 
a loud voice publicly attacked the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin cler- 
gy of the United States, whom they name : "Munkacs Clergy". They ac- 
cuse us with faults, ommisions and contraversal matters, weakness 
of character and hyper loyality. They call us before the world, to 
make us equal to them. We are at this meeting to decide, not to - 
defend ourselves, but how to express ourselves against the lies, 
attacks. We deem it necessary to present the following questions: 

Who are the attackers, and by what right are they attacking us? 

Nine members of the American clergy under the name "Eperjes - 
Clergy" as a separate corporation met, attacking the majority of 
the American clergy. We here in America do not recognize Eperjes 
nor Munkacs or other clergy, neither do we wish to recognize the 
right of nine members, to publically accuse and compromise the o- 
ther members . 

Being accused by our collegiates, could it be that under the 
image of these attacks, their is another goal covered. Being in- 
formed by the American faithful and others, we will not remain - 
silent, but we will stand up against the attacks, with respect 
and collegiality with the following reply. 

1. From the packed Minutes of the so called "Eperjes Cler- 
gy" we learn, that we were those who broke up our brothership the 
solidarity which we promised at the Brooklyn ,N.Y. meeting May 20 
1902. On our part we always strived to keep the friendship and un- 


derstanding as in the past and present, but, to make a stronger 
tie among us. We were never those and never will be, whose inte- 
rests were to build a dividing wall between the American clergy. 
For this reason we are welcoming this friendship, which originat- 
ed at Brooklyn, N.Y. meeting, where we the Greek Rite Catholic Ru- 
sin clergy of America became brothers. From the part of the newly 
appointed Visitator we hope a better future, hearing with joy his 
address, expressions, in which he says, that from now on he will 
not know a Munkacs, Eperjes or other kind of clergy. The Visitator 
approved his words with a pledge. We call these attacks a very da- 
ring insult, which by no means can be woven into a wreath of Chri- 
stian love. 

We were not and we could not been those who broke up the fra- 
ternity, because the only one who can defeat this union is he who 
is seeking a way of offending the brotherhood. 

2. Furthermore, we read in the public minutes, that the so 
called "Eperjes Clergy", wish to remain loyal and obedient friend- 
s of the Sojedineni je. Reading this , one does not have to be a 
great philosopher, to make a conclusion. They hold us to be less 
faithful to the Sojedinenije which we organized. 

If we are not loyal and friendly to the Sojedinenije, let them 
tell us how ? 

Is it because Munkacs clergy organized and nurished the SOJEDI- 
NENIJE; or because in all circumstances morally and materially we 
always defended the Sojedinenije. Is it because we did not want to 
give over our working A.R.Viestnik at the Scranton,Pa. , to those 
with whom you made an agreement. Birth is given by us, it is our 
dear child and even forced moral reasons , it would be impossible 
for us to leave. Our warm heart would ache loosing our first born 
the Organization. 

3. The deeds of the past Vll-th Convention are ascribed - 
to us, as if we were the cause of the misunderstandings, trouble- 
s and unrest. 

May we ask, was it not the decision of the general meeting in 
Johns town, Pa. , at which all the present Greek Rite Catholic Ameri- 
can clergy took part by equal rights ? 

If you were not pleased and did not agree with the resolution 
then why didnt you protest ? You claim that the so called Munkacs 
clergy were the outstanding leaders cf this meeting. 

Let us be truthful. Not only the Visitator, but , also the so 
called "EPERJES CLERGY" riwaly took part in a great number at - 
this meeting. Truely we are spiritually tempted about what was 
presented by one of you, about which, for the sake of peace we - 
will remain silent. Was it to be wondered, if we in our nervous 
state saw everything dark ? 

If so much is said about us , what led us to the cause of orga- 
nizing another Organization. Our reply is that we feared the "S0-- 
JEDINENIJE" and its members, because of the "citizen" paragraph - 
that the Sojedinenije may fall into the hands of those later, which 
could harm our faithfuls religious and moral life. We are not a- 
shamed to say that we always played cards with open hands and are 
doing the same at present, that after a few weeks past, we would 
give up our first intention. Why this ? Because of the many arti- 
cles written in the newspapers against the clergy and the Visita- 
tor, we feared that our people would be disturbed in their Rite 
to which they cling fast and through that would come the final de- 


struction. Later we settled and calmed that thought, that, if the - 
"citizen" paragraph be changed, we would still see the leadership 
of the Sojedinenije in good hands. 

Esteemed Brothers, always fearlessly declared and we repeat ; 
that all was done in the presence of Fr. Visitator, the Eperjes - 
Clergy and us . 

4. Furthermore it is our sin, that we did not defend the Vi- 
sitator against the newspapers attacks. 

Why are you ascribing this to us ? 

If you are listening to gossip, then we are silent about the 
case. How could such attacks be brought forth publicly by the cle- 
rgy with positive arguments, i.e., then, if we would be silent in 
our evil intentions. Or if one or other of us say fell into a un- 
forgivable sin which he committed by deed or word against the Vi- 
sitator, with evil intention, how could you openly accuse all - 
the so-called Munkacs clergy ? 

We openly and rightly express our selves that we welcome the 
Visitator, gave him good advise and in formation, to be helpful to 
him. What happened ? That this effect was proven to be wrong, do 
not ascribe to us, but to your advice, to which the Visitator 
always listened. 

To finish these accusations for all times, we the so called - 
Munkacs clergy, publicly and humbly proclaim that if the Visita- 
tor was, in the past or present, our greatest enemy, which we do 
not believe, even then we would be his friends, because we do not 
see in him a personal gain, but a step to a higher grade, i.e, - 
to reach the glorious goal, the approved movable, orderly religio- 
us and moral life of the Rusin American faithful. At present we 
all bow to the Visitator with respect and in love we accept his - 
deeds, praying and petitioning God, that he become the founder of 
a better and more beautiful future for the Rusin people, their 
Church and their Rite. 

5. Concerning the accusations that we inspired the evil ar- 
ticles with great dignity , we proclaim; that we did not have any 
conversation or contact with Dr. S.S. or Kovacs Kalman, nor with 
any editor at all. On the contrary, we wrote articles defending 
the Visitator. 

Finally we express ourselves, that our every move, deed, action 
was done to fulfill our obligation. When we proclaim that a great- 
er love for the Sojedinenije to which we have given birth and sup- 
port to the present day, grew in our hearts than in yours, dear 
brothers, we were moved by Christian love. 

Our right hand we are extending to you, that hand in hand - 
feeling with feeling we can become strong for the glory of God 
moved by the compassion of our faith, to be worthy leaders for - 
our Rusin people 

Signed : Fr.s : Alexius Holozsnyay, Rec. Secretary 

Alexander Dzubay , Acacius Kaminszky , Nicholas Sztecovics 
Michael Jackovics , Eugene Homicsko , Michael Lengyel 
Thomas Stefan, Michael Balogh. 




Pamphlet 1905, Cleveland, Ohio 

The meeting of the Preparatory Committees commenced October - 
18,1905, In Cleveland, Ohio, to prepare a program for the Ecclesi- 
astical - National Congress, to organize the Greek Rite Catholic 
episcopacy in the United States of America, and its matters in 
concern. The meeting commenced with a Divine Liturgy celebrated - 
by Fr. Alexander Dzubay, assisted by Fr.s Julius Medvecky and Jo- 
seph Hanulya. 

The local priest Fr . Gabriel Csopey in a sermon welcomed all 
urging them to work patiently for the good of the Church. 

After the Divine Liturgy all present met in the local Greek - 
Rite Catholic Church Hall. 

a) Of the invited the following were present, Fr.s: Alexand- 
er Dzubay, Leisering, Pa., Nicholos Sztecovics, New Salem, Pa., - 
Julius Medvecky, McKeesport,Pa. , Alexius Holozsnyay, Homestead , 
Pa., John Korotnoky, Allegheny, Pa., Joseph Hanulya, Duquesne,Pa. , 
Laymen: Michael Yuhasz Sr. Peter Dzmura, John Uhrin and John Zidik 

b) On a general invitation the following were present: 
Fr.s: Eugene Szatala, Trauger ,Pa. , Michael Balogh, Windber , Pa. , Ni- 
cholas Csopey, Wilkes Barre,Pa., Eugene Volkay, Auburn, N.Y., Antho- 
ny Mhley, Lindsey,Pa., Theodore Ladomerszky, Youngs town, Ohio, and 
Gabriel Csopey local Pastor. Laymen: Andrew Ovsak, Trauger, Pa., - 
George Galya, Braddock , Pa . , and many parishioners. 

After the usual prayer "Carju nebesnyj", Fr. Alexander Dzubay 
as a senior priest was selected as a Chairman, he made the follow- 
ing remarks : I as a senior Greek Rite Catholic priest in the U- 
nited States of America, was selected by the assembled clergy 
and laity as a Chairman of this meeting at which we will stress - 
matters and advise each other about the problems concerning our 
Eastern Greek Rite Catholic Church 

How are we to satisfy our desires, to that you will be the 
witness interceeding for our Greek Rite Catholic Church. I am con- 
vinced that you are full of zeal in the matter of reaching our go- 
al , which we proposed for ourselves . The success of this meeting 
does not depend on the point of views, but on its spirit. Look at 
the uneducated Apostles, who were called by Christ to follow Him. 
How did they propagate the teaching of Christ ? They made such 
great progress, that today there is no place in the world, that - 
the teaching of Christ is not taught. 

Follow them do not deny yourselves of hard work. Let the gra- 
ce of God fire your hearts with sincere love of your Greek Rite - 
Catholic Eastern Church. The great treasure which you received 
from your ancestors, for which they suffered and were persecuted, 
but accepted all with joy, seeing the beauty of the Greek Rite - 
and believing that through this Greek Rite Catholic Church they 
can reach the Kingdom of Heaven and the salvation of their souls . 

When we accepted this great treasure gift from our ancestors 
we also accepted the responsibility to defend the purity of the 
RITE and Church , which we are to give our descendants. 

We too are suspected and persecuted. Be not of little faith 
but firmly hope in a progress. With the grace of God, and your 
hard work with united strenght you will progress. 


To progress, you are called to work at the Preparatory Meeting 
about which the Apostolic Delegate is notified in Washington, D.C. 
He wishes to know about our proposals and decisions of this meet- 
ing. Be sure, that the proposals and decisions will follow the 
laws of the Church. 

I am welcoming you all to this meeting, praying to Almighty - 
God to enlighten you through the grace of the Holy Spirit to deter 
from you all evil intentions which would harm your hard work. 

Finally I am asking you all to choose a Chairman from among us 
and two recording secretaries, one priest and one layman. 

Fr. Nicholas Sztecovics proposed that the Chairman be unanimo- 
usly selected, namely Fr. Alexander Dzubay. Accepted. 

Fr. Julius Medvecky proposed that the following be recording 
secretaries: Fr. Joseph Hanulya, Fr. Alexius Holozsnyay and Paul 
Zsatkovics . Accepted. Being that the lay secretary did not arri- 
ve, the meeting was postponed to 2. P.M. Accepted. 

Fr. Nicholas Csopey 
Michael Yuhasz Sr. 

The 2. P.M. meeting was opened with a prayer, Minutes read and 
accepted . 

The Chairman in his speach showed that there is a great need 
of a leader, shepherd, governor, a man, who will offer himself - 
for the flock, Church and Rite. What are we to do to get such a 
leader ? 

Thank you all for your trust in me . 

We all are living in the United States of America, but we are 
not united into one family, because we are not organized. Why ? - 
We are not organized, but we still have in the United States 72 
parishes and over 250,000 souls. Let us all come to an understand- 
ing, to have and know one leader to obey according the will of God, 
to have one society to establish an episcopal See . 

Where is the strenght ? In unity and understanding. 

In Unity and understanding many matters can be accomplished, 
without unity and understanding nothing can be accomplished. 

We have gathered here to help ourselves . We compose one fami- 
ly without a leader, without a father, without a shepherd. 

Do we have our Official, our shepherd ? We have not, no won- 
der that we are so dead. 

A strange warmth will not warm our hearts. Subjected to 
straingers we cannot progress. A heart's desire can be understood 
only by a heart, when it sees joy in the progress which we gained 

Do we know how will we be able to establish, build, unite and 
hold ourselves together, will we be worthy of a blessed honor and 
to serve the Church of Christ in the United States ? If we do not 
know, or are unable to do so, that is our shame, but if we know - 
how and succeed, that will be our victory. 

In number we are many, but in strenght few. 

Let us all stand up according to our nationality and rite. 

Let the blessed time and our redemption come. 

What do we need ? What do we want ? Why are we working and - 
what do we hope to gain ? 

A leader, who governs, who is kind as the Sacred Heart of Je- 
sus to his flock , a bishop of our rite . 

Moses led the Israelites in hope of blessedness to the promis- 


ed land of Canaan, where honey and milk flow. We too need such a 
leader, a Moses, in our plight, who would wake us up into fitness 
to gain our goal. 

We need a leader, a shepherd, a bishop, who will not be influ- 
enced by strangers. Who is not to harm us, but who gladly would re- 
joyce in us, bear with us our hardship, who would protect us, make 
peace among us and lead us; a bishop who is gifted with an apostol- 
ic call, for his Church, rite and nationality. Only in such a lead- 
er will we be able to exist here, and progress for the glory of 
our Church and rite . 

It is our task, if we wish to exist in the United States of A- 
merica, if we want to unite in our humble work, to support our lea- 
der in religion, national and other movements. Or is it only we 
who should be without a leader.? 

The birds have their leader, when they are looking for their - 
homeland and refuge. So are we looking. A leader is necessary in - 
all ways of life . Without such a one , we become wanderers in the 
dark night, subject to all danger and destruction. 

If we wish to exist, we must wake up from our slunber, set a- 
side our old garments , dress up in new garments ; heal our wounds 
and offer ourselves to our holy work. 

Our goal is to call a meeting, to have a great Ecclesiastical 
National gathering, to prepare a good program and a petition to ha- 
ve an Eparchy and Bishop. We need a Greek Rite Catholic, who is an 
able leader, a shepherd, to lead us on the right road, who will be 
recognized by other authorities, make order in the boundries of 
clergy and faithful according the Church Law and establish autonomy. 

We must think seriously about establishing an Eparchial Fund - 
to cover the bishops expenses, the cathedral church, residence. 

We must set a date and place for the great Ecclesiastical and 
National Congress, select the committees, who will direct, make or- 
der at this meeting. 

Finally it is necessary that we send the resolutions of this - 
meeting to the Apostolic Delegate, with a remark, that the same is 
sent to the Visitator, asking permission to hold a great Ecclesi- 
astical and National Congress . 

I have presented to you all matters about which we are to have 
discussions to call the great Ecclesiastical National Congress, to 
be successful in all our wishes. 

All present Fathers and laymen start your work and respect - 
the Church Laws, regulations. Go on with God. 

Letter and telegrams were read. 

We continue with the discussions of how to make up the peti- 
tion to the Holy Father of Rome. Fr. Julius Medvecky asked Fr. A- 
lexius Holozsnyay, who in such matters had written several times, 
how to construct this petition. 

Fr. Alexius Holozsnyay gladly replied: We must describe our 
history in the United States of America; we must prove the number 
of faithful and churches, that clergy have the right to have a Bi- 
shop according to law and privileges secured by the Union. For the 
evils and harm of the past, we deserve our wish, and the addition 
of the minutes of the Ecclesiastical National Congress be included. 

Fr. Nicholas Csopey asked, do those not invited by name, who - 
are present have a right to express their opinion ? 

Being that no one was excluded from this discussion, all who 


are present may express their opinion. 

Fr. Nicholas Csopey proposed a few remarks to be added to the 
resolutions . 

a) To these remarks • Fr . Alexius Holozsnyay added as follow- 
s: To the remark about the jurisdiction of the Latin Rite Bishop- 
s, add: When asking for jurisdiction, with that we prove, that - 
we wish to remain loyal to the Catholic Church and not be paying 
cathedraticum meant, that we do not want to give up our rights or 
to give up our rite . 

b) That the Visitator sent to us from Rome was not the fir- 
st Visitator. But, previous to that we had an Apostolic Vicar ap- 
pointed by Satoli Apostolic Delegate of Washington , D , C . naming Fr. 

Nicephor Chanat. 

c) That the Greek Rite Syrian Catholics, who are a small - 
group, have their own Vicar, 

d) The Bishops of the Latin Rite do not speak our Rusin lan- 
guage, nor know our Greek Rite, discipline and privileges, for 
such reason we cannot obey them. 

e) Let not Rome say that the privileges of the Union of Ung- 
var, Hungary are lost. The Greek Rite Catholic Church gave the 
privilege to the Emperor-King out of kindness for their help. Here 
in the United States of America, no one is helping the Church, (us) . 
Therefore there is no reason to deny ourselves of the Privileges . 

Fr. Julius Medvecky proposes to have a committee to compile 
a Memorandum, namely the following :Fr.s Alexius Holozsnyay, John 
Korotnoky, Nestor Volensky and Mr Paul Zsatkovics. Unanimously ac- 
cepted . 

The Memorandum is to be sent to all the Greek Rite Catholic 
Bishops of the world and to all Latin Rite Bishops in the United 
States of America. Questions asked ? Should we send only an ex- 
tract or a full Memorandum ? 

It was resolved to send the full Memorandum with its remarks. 

Ten minutes recess . 

The self Government of the Greek Rite Catholics is to be dis- 
cussed. Fr. Julius Medvecky proposed: being that the faithful are 
supporters of the church materially, we do not want to take ' away 
from them that right. To protect the right we shall do so by a 
"CHARTER" which the civil authorities will accept. 

Up to the present the faithful lived with these rights, but 
the mistake and lack is, that there is no equality. We must have 
regulations which will be the same for all the churches. We must 
petition Rome, that the Bishop give over the building administra- 
tion schools, institutions to be in the care of the faithful. 

The Protectress of this autonomy will be "THE PATRONAGE OF - 

It is understood, that in the autonomy was omitted dogma, moral 
and Church discipline. Accepted. 

Fr. Nicholas Csopey proposed that the autonomy be read and on- 
ly after that the addition to be added to it. 

Concerning the establishing of an Eparchial Fund the Autonomy 
officials are the defenders, protectors of it, but the members of 
the congregation and officers have the right to speak about it at 
a meeting. Accepted. 

The Filial churches are under the administration of the Pastor 
of the Mother church. 


It was resolved that the Filial church can be separated from 
the Mother church if it has at least 150 families. 

No one can become a member of a church unless he she lived in 
the town city over six weeks. Those who reached their 21st year, 
are obligated to pay the yearly offerings (rocne) . Accepted. 

Accepted by : Rev. Nicholas Csopey 

Michael Yuhasz,Srj 

On October 19, 1904 after the Divine Liturgy the meeting com- 
menced All present. Paul Zsatkovics arrived and the following - 
left the meeting Fr.s Nicholas Sztecovics, Michael Balogh /Theodo- 
re Ladomerszky and Eugene Volkay. 

The minutes of the previous meeting were accepted by Fr. 
las Csopey and Michael Yuhasz Sr. 

George Galya made a motion that a committee be selected to 
compile the Memorandum, and five more members to be added to the 
committee. Not accepted. 

Paul Zsatkovics proposed that the Autonomy paper of Fr. Julius 
Medvecky be accepted unanimously. Accepted. 

Fr. Julius Medvecky read this Autonomy paper . 

Who could be a member of the Congregation and by what reason 
could be expelled ? 

Concerning the church officers their rights of the office, 
they hold. 

The widow and children of a priest may remain in the rectory, 
for six months, receive the salary, but not the stola fee. Without 
the consent of the widow, no one can not vacate them from the rec- 
tory and the neighboring priest is to give the services to the pa- 
rish. Accepted 

In case a bishop is appointed all the rights o- the President 
go to the bishop. Accepted. 

Committees to compile the autonomy of the church are: Fr.s: - 
Julius Medvecky, Joseph Hanulya, Nicholas Csopey and Mr. Paul Zsat- 

The Chairman thanked Fr. Julius Medvecky for his Autonomy pa-' 
per , and assigned a recess of ten minutes. 

When the meeting commenced Paul Zsatkovics proposed; up to the 
present day we turned to politicians for help in Church matters, it 
is time to turn to our own Church Committee, and work with them 
for our goal, and forget the political views. Accepted. 

The Chairman asked Fr. Joseph Hanulya to make his proposal con- 
cerning the Bishop See and institutions. 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA proposed the following: 


From the Memorandum we are aware that the immigrants from Hun- 
gary, Podkarpatska Rus ' were striving for years to have their own 
bishop of the Greek Rite 

Concerning the Church matters, many meeting were held, 
Papal documents , bullas issued, but all was in vain. Many people 
lost their patience in this cause, gave up, not seeing any result- 
s. Our enemies laughed at us , considering our hard work an impos- 
sible dream for the Greek Rite Catholics to have a bishop. 

The reasons are as I see them: 

1. We all did not work together. The clergy divided themsel- 


ves according Eparchies, or the united clergy forgot about the peo- 
ple, leaving them out of Church matters. 

2. The question of organizing the financial support of a Bi- 
shop we can do so. 

These two questions must be left out, because they will not - 
help our cause. 

Thank God that they are left out, the first reason is because 
all the clergy are working together, regardless of Eparchial ori- 
gin and the people are also included in the work. I am welcoming 
and greeting you all present as the representatives of clergy and 

The second reason is to leave out the point of financial sup- 
port, because the question is, how will we support the bishop fi- 
nancially ? 

When a new parish is organized and they request a priest, they 
must build a church, a rectory and support the running expenses , 
etc. At all our consultations we spoke about the Bishops See. The 
first thing should have been, what is necessary at all time. If a 
priest is in a parish and there is not anough support, the priest 
may take up another parish, with the bishops permission, but a bi- 
shop cannot do that, because in one Eparchy there is only one bi- 

We need order. We need a leader to make order, a bishop. Then 
at the same time we are taking upon ourselves a responsibility .We 
must understand that Rome, will not give us a bishop until we pro- 
ve ourselves financially sound and secure. 

We must support financially: 

a) The Cathedral church. 

b) The Episcopal residence. 

c) The seminary and institutions. 

d) The yearly salary of the bishop. 

e) The yearly salary of the Secretary of the bishop. 

f) The yearly salary of the Cantor of the Cathedral. 

g) The upkeep of the Cathedral church and residence. 

To cover up all these expenses there must be a General Fund. 
I propose the following : 

I . The committee is to approve the above expenses . 
Eastablish an Eparchial Fund. 

a) Private offerings . 

b) Yearly offerings of the faithful. 

II. Let this committee appoint a three member committee to 
compile the statutes for the Eparchial Fund. 

For the private and yearly offerings I would recommend: 

1. To accept any offering as a private offering, but if so- 
meone would offer $25,00 or $ 50.00 or $100.00 or more, such a - 
person will become a Founder of the Eparchial Fund. He or she 
would receive a white, silver or gold certificate. 

2. To accept the private offerings in each parish, there 
should be a three man committee; the priest, trustee and treasurer. 
er 3. The offering are to be sent to the Eparchial Treasurer - 
with in 30 days. 

4. The Eparchial Fund Committee is to be elected at the Ec- 
clesiastical National meeting before the coming of the bishop. 
The appointment i? to be for a term of two years, when a new elec- 
tion be held. The committee should consist of: Pastor President, 


secretary and treasurer. 

5 . All members of the committee must take a pledge and be - 
bonded . 

6- The Eparchial fund will be supervised by three pledged 
members. (A priest and two laymen). 

7. The money is to be deposited in a Bank to get interest . 
The treasurer may hold cash of $500.00 only. 

8. The checks are to be signed by the President, Secretary , 
and treasurer of the Eparchial Fund. 

9. A meeting of the committees must be held every three 
months, or in case of necessity, at the request of the Five member 
Committee. The minutes of the meeting must be published in the Ru- 
sin newspapers with the financial repcnrt of the offerings. 

10. It is understood, whenever we will have a bishop, he - 
will become automatically the president of the Ecclesiastical Fund, 

and the President will become a director of the Eparchial Fund,un- 
till a further order of the bishop. From voluntary offerings we a- 
re expecting to collect $50,000.00 

III 1. The usual yearly cathedraticum which will beset by - 
the Ecclesiastical National Meeting Committee, is how much will - 
each Greek Rite Catholic Church be assessed. The Mother and Filial 
church will be assessed by the number of families and single work- 

2. This obligation is to be paid every year in January to - 
the Eparchial Fund Treasurer, with the report of families and sing- 
le people. 

3. The statement will be important and authentic list of na- 
mes of a certain parish church. 

4. The Eparchial Committee (Fund), through the President may 
file a law process against the parish, church which will not ful- 
fill this obligation. 

5. In the report of the families, we will check with the re- 
cord of last years births. 

6. If some one moves away from the parish, he can become a 
member of the parish church only if he has an affidavit from the 
priest, that he had fulfulled his obligation concerning the Epar- 
chial Fund. 

Every religion in the United States of America has such an of- 
fering obligation for its support. So, we too have it. Even though 
this obligation offering will be higher in the beginning, this we 
must bear, because every beginning is hard. 

I think that every honest responsible Greek Rite Catholic will 
approve, that we must support the needs of the Bishop See and in- 

Let us make our donations according our ability in honor of 
our Eparchy and our own honor 

The priests and cantors are to secure their future and their 
families through a fund in case of sickness or death. 

The Ecclesiastical National Meeting proclaims that every Greek 
Rite Catholic priest and cantor join the fund and pay the prescrib- 
ed amount to the fund. 

The statutes of the Fund will be compiled by the committee. 

A call was made several times in the newspapers and the Sojedi- 
nenije meetings to protect our orphans and build an orphanage. For 


this reason we propose and accept, that every family belong and ob- 
ligate itself to pay a few cents to this Orphan Fund. 

In this charitable gift every members descendants will benefit 
by it having a home in time of need. Others will also be accepted 
if possible. 

This proposal was unanimously accepted to propose it to the - 
Ecclesiastical National Meeting, with the following addition con- 
cering its functions. Fr. Julius Medvecky "Autonomy Paper" tells 
us who is to be trusted with this work. 

It is also proposed to set a date, place and number of com- 
mittees to handle this charitable deed. 

The best date would be the day of our Patron Saint Nicholas of 
Myra December 2-19, 1905. 

The following Executive Committees were selected Fr.s Alexandr 
er Dzubay, President, Joseph Hanulya and Mr John Uhrin Recording 
secretaries of the Preparatory Committee. Members of the committee 
are Fr.s: Peter Keselyak, Brooklyn, N.Y. .Cornelius Laurisin, She- 
nandoah, Pa. , Nicholas Csopey, Wilkes Barre,Pa., and Nicholas Pod- 
horecky, South Fork, Pa; Laymen: Paul Z6atkovics , Michael Yuhasz,Sr. 
Homestead, Pa, Peter Dzmura, Braddock,Pa. and Andrew Ovsak, Cantor, 
Trauger,Pa., Michael Rays, Cleveland, Ohio, Michael Korinko, Potts- 
town, Pa, Michael Rusin, Minneapolis, Minn, and Michael Jasko, Hazle- 

The list of Executive Committee the name of Fr. Alexander Dzu- 
bay , President is to be added and all the members exof f icio are 
members of the Ecclesiastical National Meeting. 

The obligation of this committee will be , to send to the Apo- 
stolic Delegate and the Visitator a copy of the minutes of the 
Preparatory Meeting, to have all set for the great meeting. 

The Delegates will be checked by the appointed commit tees, each 
parish will be represented by two delegates and the Filial church 
by one delegate . 

Brooklyn, N.Y. was proposed for the place of the great meeting. 
All of this territory agreed, but those from Ohio opposed it say- 
ing; let it be there where the first meeting was. Fr. Gabriel Cso- 
pey of Cleveland, Ohio, proposed that for all the Greek Rite Cathol- 
ic Rusins, Cleveland Ohio is the most proper place. 

The Chairman remarked that the meeting will decide the place 
of the meeting. It was unanimously accepted that the meeting be 
held in Brooklyn, N.Y. 

The Presidents closing remarks and prayer. 

Fr. Alexius Holozsnyay 
■»■ Fr. Joseph Hanulya 

Paul Zsatkovics. 



Brothers we are standing on the threshold of our great task . 

In the Old-country we had order in our Church affairs, but he- 
re in the United States of America, we have no order, no understan- 
ding, no true expression to secure the future of developing our re- 
ligions rite and nationality. 

Right from the very beginning our leaders saw the necessity of 


establishing an Episcopal See in the United States of America. They 
were consoling about this project, they travelled, petitioned, but, 
did not succeed. Why ? Because this is only the beginning of begin- 
nings . 

A detirmend goal of this movement, differ from the goal of the 
past where only certain clergy, certain groups were acting. But at 
present all the clergy and people are united, and this unity must 
bring its results . 

The consequence of this movement a meeting of the Executive 
Committee is called to Cleveland, Ohio, October 18-19,1905. 

It was resolved by the Preparatory Committee unanimously that 
the Great Meeting be held in Brooklyn, N. Y. , December 19,1905 on St. 
Nicholas day, at the St.Elias Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

The First General Ecclesiastical National Meeting is to compile 
a petition to be sent to Rome about establishing an Episcopal See 
and all necessary matters of the future Episcopal See to be debated. 

Accept as follows: 

a) The composition of "Autonomy" must appear verbaly in the 
newspaper before the meeting. 

b) Compile a short Memorandum 

c) . The project of the Episcopal Fund to be set, i.e. all ne 
cessary matters. 

Now is the time for us to accomplish and continue these discusi- 

The President of the Executive Committee Fr . Alexander Dzubay - 
with the consent of majority of members, made the following arrange- 
ment; asking the clergy and the faithful that they do their utmost 
for the glory of their Church as sincerely and punctually as they 
love their Church. 

1. Many parishes disapprove with the appointed date, because 
the feast day of St. Nicholas is celebrated in many parishes .There- 
fore the date December 19, 1905 will be postponed one week, i.e., to 
December 26, 1905, to be held in Brooklyn, N.Y. 

2. Every church even the poorest send two delegates to this 
meeting and the Filial church one delegate. The elected and approv- 
ed delegates must have an authorization signed by the priest and 
two trustees and a church seal, verification must be presented at 
the meeting. 

Please, send in the names of the elected delegates to the re- 
cording secretary Fr. Joseph Hanulya, P.O.Box 334 Duquesne,Pa, who 
will have the names published in the newspaper before the meeting. 

3. If a Greek Rite Catholic parish will not send its delegate 
to the meeting, will be considered approved by them. 

4. The meeting will commence with a Divine Liturgy celebrat- 
ed by Fr. Alexander Dzubay in Brooklyn, N. Y. , 720 Leonard Street, 
December 26, 1905, at 10 A.M., when all the clergy and delegates 
to be present. 

We are in such a state, condition, that we must declare, if we ' 
want to live, exist, or not. The good Lord said: "I gave you life - 
and death, curse and blessing, choose, that your and yours descen- 
dants may live". 

The Lord with His wonderous Providence proved to us, what is 
his will, that we live. But, if we will not work, and act as ene- 
mies against our goal, we will be the cause of our death. We wish 
to live and life is necessary for us and our descendants. 


Then work with one thought, one desire and with united strenght . 
If our people would rather die not live, have death and not life 
even then we should work, that the future generation could recog- 
nize our death, and that evil people, not we caused our death. 

We firmly believe that we will not find in the United States 
of America priest or congregation who would not partake in our - 
meeting, thus becoming the enemy of its own people and brothers. 

If such a Godless person would exist or such a congregation, 
you who are not of the same thought, let us know, that we could 
let the whole United States know, that the guilty receive condem- 
nation . 

For a time let us all lay aside all kinds of politics or per- 
sonal views, ambitions, seek only one thing that our true Cathol- 
ic Church, follow and respect the great Eastern Rite, and as such 
with united strenght work for the good of the Church, rite, natio- 
nality, for our selves and our descendants. 

Accept my thanks for your collaboration. 
I remain with friendly greetings 

Fr. Alexander Dzubay, President 
Fr. Joseph Hanulya, Rec. Sec. 
Leisering, Pa. , November 28,1905. 


Sojuz, "SVOBODA" December 28, 1905. p. 4 

The same committee in the A.R. Viestnik better explains the 
postponment of the Congress, saying ,that it is a diplomatic move 
of the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D.C. Besides this the Exe- 
cutive Committee states the facts: 

1. The Latin Rite Bishop of Pittsburgh, Pa. , (J.F. Regis Ca- 
nevi, 1903-1920) September 7, 1905 told Fr. Alexander Dzubay to in- 
form the Apostolic Delegate about the meeting in Cleveland, 0. The 
Delegate not only will approve it, but wants such a meeting. 

2. The Pittsburgh, Pa., Latin Rite Bishop also told Fr.s Al- 
exander Dzubay, Cornelius Laurisin, Alexius Holozsnyay and Joseph 
Hanulya, that the Apostolic Delegate cannot stop the meeting, and 
if he does not give his approval, he will remain silent. Then the 
Pittsburgh, Pa, Latin Rite Bishop will give the permission, to all 
the Greek Rite clergy in his Diocese to attend the meeting. 

3. The Apostolic Delegate invited Fr.s Alexander Dzubay and 
Joseph Hanulya to an audience December 13,1905, where he advised - 
them that the Pittsburgh, Pa. Bishop, wrote to him about altogether 
different matters, and not about what they are saying, which was 
reported to him by Fr. Andrew Hodobay, written by Fr. Joseph Hanu- 
lya. That the Congress will be held with the approval of the Apos- 
tolic Delegate. The Apostolic Delegate said: I have a written co- 
py a proof that only one groups intention is to have the Congress. 
Such Congress can be held only with the permission of Rome under 
the Chairmanship of the Apostolic Delegate or the Visitator. 

The following day after the audience with Fr.s Alexander Dzu- 
bay and Joseph Hanulya in the Apostolic Delegates Office, as it is 
known to our readers, a letter written to the Greek Rite Catholic 
clergy in care of Fr, Alexander Dzubay, which states: I do not - 
know about the meeting to be held in Cleveland, 0. nor about the 
Congress, therefore it must be postponed. 


It is a known fact that the Congress was incited by intrigues 
and the lies of those who oppose it. They dared to call the meet- 
ing off in the name of those who wanted the Congress . 

The Apostolic Delegate would have noticed in the leaders of 
the Congress, energy, strenght, braveness, confidence, he would 
dared to give permission in a letter. With this action of the 
Greek Rite Catholics they are richer with another fiasco. 

Now the Executive Committee are referring to the people. THe 
Uhro-Rusin clergy realized, that they must have the backing of 
the people, if they wish to do something in these matters. To gain 
the people, they must come close to them and care for their en- 


Sojuz. "SVOBODA". March 15,1906 

p. 4. 

REMARKS: The Congress is postponed. 

The A.R.Viestnik is presenting the following reasons for the 
postponement of the. Congress. 

1. The Brooklyn, N.Y. and New York,N.Y., priests notified the 
Committee that they will not give them permission, to celebrate - 
the Divine Liturgy of the Congress in their churches . 

2 . Agitation against the Congress was great and fear aross- 
ed, that many clergy and delegates would not be present, being it 
was forbidden . 

3. Many Latin Rite Bishops threatened the clergy, who dare 
to attend the Congress with excommunication. 

4. Furthermore, some also opposed having the Congress dur- 
ing Lent. 

Consequently the Executive Committee decided again to petition 
the Apostolic Delegate to give them permission to have the Congess . 

The Chairman and the Recording Secretary received a promise 
from the Apostolic Delegate, to have the Congress under the Chair- 
manship of the Apostolic Delegate. 

The A.R.Viestnik received the following telegram" Washington, 
D.C. March 7, 1906. VICTORY ! The Apostolic Delegate gave us permis- 
sion to hold the Congress, after Lenten Season. 

Inform all through a circular letter. 

Fr. Alexander Dzubay 
Fr. Joseph Hanulya. 


TO THE UNITE STATES 3339 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 

No 11313 A.R.Viestnik March 15, 1906 .p4. 

I have no objection that the Greek Rite Catholic priests and - 
some distinguished laymen of the same rite, hold the desired re- 
union in New York, N.Y. on the 13th inst. , for the purpose of for- 
mulating and sending to His Holiness Pius X the above mentioned 

However, as the question of giving to Greek Rite Catholics of 
the United States a Bishop of their own rite is already under con- 
sideration by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, should the 


Holy See have nominated a bishop before date, the 13th instant, the 
said re-union should naturally, not be held. 

Washing ton, D,C. March 7, 1906 

D. Falconi , Archbishop of 
SEAL Larissa Apostolic Delegate 



SVOBODA, March 25,1907. p. 4. 

When the Old-country and the English newspapers brought the - 
news about the appointment of a Greek Rite Catholic Bishop for the 
United States of America, it was time to stop being unbelievers in 
this matter. The Bishop is appointed for us and not for some oth- 
ers, whom we requested. 

We do not have a thing against the person Soter Ortynsky, becau- 
se all those who know him personally or heard about him, admit, that 
if they had to appoint a Bishop from the Old-country, this was an 
excellent selection. 

How do we benefit by such a person, as Soter Ortynsky, who is 
highly educated, talented, energetic speaker as a missionary , a 
good Rusin, in all his episcopal authority is a Bishop in partibus 
infidelio, i.e will not have full jurisdiction over our people, in- 
stead, he will be an instrument in the hands of the Latin Rite Bi- 
shops . 

According to my view our Bishop is only a Suffragan, i.e., sub- 
jected to all the Latin Rite Bishops. Such conditions will notbett- 
er our cause. On the contrary, it will bring an earlier destruction 
of our Church, Rite. Why ? Because our Bishop will have no Eparchy, 
he will be only at the mercy of the Latin Rite Bishops, i.e., in - 
each diocese he will have to report to the Latin Rite Bishop and 
ask permission to work in his diocese. What does all this mean ? 
That our future Bishop will be totally dependent on the Latin Rite 
Bishops; he will be ordaining young men to the priesthood, who stu- 
died in the Latin Seminary with the Latin Rite seminarians and 
will bless our churches with the permission of the Latin Rite Bish- 

If our Bishop would not agree with the will of the Latin Rite 
Bishop, or if he would have some misunderstanding with him, he can 
report him to Rome. He could be degraded, recalled from the United 
States to the Old-country to become the Metropolitan' a Suffragan - 
or some where else, or be in Rome. Who ever knows the situation, - 
circumstances, must admit that Rome depends on the United States - 
of American Latin Rite Bishops, because they are the great finan- 
cial supporters of Rome with American dollars. 

If our bishop would be a full jurisdictional bishop, we are a- 
ware that he subject directly to Rome, and not to the Bishops of 
the United States. For such a bishop an Eparchy can be created. 

I am not mistaken, when I say that most of our Rusins are work- 
ing in Pennsylvania, most of the churches are there too, with most 


of the priests . Then let our first bishop occupy the Eparchy of - 
Pennsylvania, then he would become the ruler of his Eparchy. But, 
in other diocese he would have to depend on the Latin Rite Bish- 
ops. In time when more parishes would be established, then anoth- 
er Eparchy could be established, with another bishop. In Canada - 
they should also have a bishop. Such moves in our church in the - 
United States of America would result in not only one bishop, but 
more bishops. Our Church could spread with the immigration move- 
ment. All this could be possible, if Rome would put our Church on 
the same level as the Latin Rite Churches, giving us a bishop, 
with full jurisdiction, who could establish churches in the Unit- 
ed States of Ameica without any hindrance. The Greek Rite Cathol- 
ic Rusins would belong to their bishop and not to the Latin Rite 

If the powerful Latin Rite Bishops of America would not permit 
the establishing of the first Pennsylvania Eparchy, for the new 
bishop, then we would have to strive, that Rome would give us a 
bishop with full jurisdiction over all the Greek Rite Catholic - 
people in the United States of America. This means to appoint a 
Vicar General from the Greek Rite Catholic Missions in the United 
States . 

In such a case he would have all the rights and would not re- 
port, nor get permission from the Latin Rite Bishop. If this would 
not happen then the Greek Rite Catholics would fall deeper into 
humiliation of the Latin Rite Bishops. 

I am presenting to the honorable gathering these thoughts, to 
weigh and propose I deem it good to meet after Thomas Sun- 
day May 14, 1906, where all would meet: Uhro- Rusins, Russians and 
Galician Rusin clergy, regardless of political views. The proper 
place to meet, would be Philadelphia, Pa. , or flew York,N.Y. There 
we could come to a better understanding , advise each other concern- 
ing the welcome of our bishop. This movement would be noticed not 
onlt by the Rusins, but also by other nationals in the United 
States of America. 

Finally, it would be a thought for all the clergy to think - 
these matters over, write them down, that the meeting could be 

P.S. All the newspapers are requested to print the above. 

Signed: A PRIEST. 


A.R.Viestnik April, 1907, p. 4. 

The A.R.Viestnik reports, the Apostolic Delegate sent a tele- 
gram , notifying us that the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop is appo- 
inted for the Rusins of the United States of America, namely Fr. 
Soter Ortynsky, OSBM, from Galicia. 

The short information suprised everyone interested in our 
Church matters . We also are aware that the majority did not belie- 
ve these news, considering it only a humbug. 

The following Saturday, the organ of the former Visitator Fr. 
Andrew Hodobay, Cleveland, Ohio, the Hungarian newspaper "MAGYAR 
NAPILAP", published not only the appointment, but also presented 
two documents; rescripts of March 25, 1907, received by Fr. Andrew 


Hodobay from the Propaganda Fide in Rome and from the Apostolic - 
Delegate of Washington, D. C. , stating that the Bishop is appointed. 

These two documents inform us , that the Visitator is releaved 
of his office as Visitator, asked not to mix into church matters.. 
In the United States of America, he is replaced by a bishop ap- 
pointed by the Holy See. 

With this the comedy which was played in the United States 
of America for the past five years ended. This comedy cost the 
Hungarian Government 500,000 Kronens. The Hungarian Government 
could of spent the great amount of money for a better cause. 

Fr. Andrew Hodobay was in the United States of America for fi- . 
ve years as a Visitator, and somekind of a secret agent of the 
Hungarian Government. During this time, he did not make one suc- 
cessful move to make order in the Church matters, he made intrigu- 
es , sew the seed of evil , used all kind of clever moves concern- 
ing the Hung arian Government. He simply chewed out the money a- 
gainst Panslovanism and lived like a Turkish Pasha. 

Fr. Andrew Hodobay came to the United States, with the great 
hope, that he will become an American bishop.. Yes, he could of 
succeeded in his goal if he would worked honestly and acted as a 
Church authority. He was successful with his cleverness to blind 
the Hungarian Government , in whom they had great confidence. This 
induced them to do all that was possible in Rome, that he be nomi- 
nated for the Greek Rite Catholics in the United States of America 
as a bishop. But his deeds did not please the Hungarian Government 
All of his moves were watched. Here too a group was convinced that 
Fr. Hodobay did not have in his heart a good will for the Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Rusins . he was interested in politics and personalgain- 
s. On account of these reasons the opposing group reported Fr. And- 
rew Hodobay to the Holy See. The consequence was that Rome did not 
appoint Fr. Andrew Hodobay a bishop. Rome set aside all the can- 
didates of Hungary and appointed a disinterested person, highly 
educated monk of the Order of St. Basil the Great 

The conclusion of Fr. Andrew Hodobays comedy could not ended 
otherwise. This was a good education for the Hungarian Government 
to learn and choose better people to gain success . 

A. R. VIES TNI K April 18,1907. p. 4. 

No one is missing the fact that the Greek Rite Catholics receiv- 
ed a Bishop of their own rite. All the newspapers even in the Old- 
country it was published, but the matter is of little consequence. 
The Bishop is only a titular (in partibus infidelium) . To have a 
Greek Rite Catholic Episcopal See in the United States of America, 
there must be a canonical establishment. 

Concerning the new bishop; where will he be ordained a Bishop. 
When will he arrive in the United States of America. Where will he 
live, etc. Up to date nothing is known. Whatever was said up to 
the present day, proves only theories about the bishop. There are 
even some who say, that the newly appointed bishop is from Hungary, 
but they do not know from which part of Hungary. 

News are arriving, but we do not know the fects. That Rome ap- 
pointed a titular bishop for the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins of the 
United States of America, namely Soter Ortynsky a member of the 
Order of St. Basil the Greeat stationed in Galicia, is all we know. 


The nomination of a Greek Rite Catholic Bishop should not be 
a suprise, because it is the work of years and years and the ap- 
pointment of a bishop is a natural consequence of much hard work 
of our great "Sojedinenije" and the clergy. The appointment was a 
suprise; because the majority of the Greek Rite Catholic IMMIGRAN- 
TS ARE FROM Hungary. They have more churches, clergy and better or- 
ganized. What is more, only they worked hard in making order in 
the church matters, they are the legal intermediators of the Epis- 
copal See. Thinking that the bishop will be appointed of among - 
them or someone from Hungary. 

The Jews, Hungarians, renagates, political agents, all believ- 
ed that no one else will be a bishop, but the Visitator Andrew Ho- 
dobay, the political policeman.. The tingling of silver and decora- 
tion of Fr. Andrew Hodobay, did not help. Instead a great man , a 
GALICIAN monk was nominated to be a bishop. 

The suprise concerning the person has its own reason, but a 
fact cannot be changed. 

What made Fr. Soter Ortynsky worthy of becoming a bishop? How 
is he judged ? Facts and explanations, which are given in the Hun- 
garian and Rusin newspapers are the best proof. 

1. The Hungarian newspaper " MAGYAR H I RLAP", Cleveland, Ohio 
organ of the former Visitator and the Jewish action, states that: 
The guardianship above the Rusins of Hungary has saddened Fr, And- 
rew Hodobay. What will happen to them, not having their own protec- 
tor? He used all his influence at the candidacy of the United Stat- 
es of American Bishop, to have someone from the territory of Hun- 
hary, but he was not successful, in his goal. 

2. Another Hungarian newspaper in Cleveland, Ohio, th"MAGYAJR- 
OK VASARNAPJA" an organ of the Hungarian clergy, criticizes the - 
appointment of Bishop, a Galician monk, and at the same time prais- 
es the "police work" of the former Chief Fr. Andrew Hodobay recom- 
mending him for a reward. 

3. The Pittsburgh, Pa. , Hungarian newspaper "MAGYAR ZASZLO" of 
sovinist Hungarians writes the followin: 

In the life of the Greek Rite Catholic Church, Rome made news, 
appointed a titular bishop, namely Stephen Soter Ortynsky a Gali- 
cian Monk of the Order of St. Basil the Great as the first Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Bishop for the United States of America. An old re- 
quest of the Greek Rite Catholics is fulfilled. They have their 
own bishop. Will they be happy ? The future will give an answer to 
that. We personally believe the contrary will happen, because of 
the following reasons : 

First of all he is a Galician. 

Secondly, he is only a titular bishop. 

Therefore the Greek Rite Catholics are still there where they 
were. They are responsible to the Roman Catholic Diocesam Bishops. 
With this act of Rome the office of Visitator has ended. The Visi- 
tator will return to Eperjes, where he will end his life as a Canon 
of the Eperjes Chapter. In reward for his office as Visitator Rome 
sent Fr. Andrew Hodobay only a warm thank you, for his work. 

4. The Olyphant Pa. Russian newspaper" PRAVDA" organ of the 
Obscestvo, writes very favorably about the appointed Bishop. 

May God grant us order in our church matters . So far there was 
so many disorders piled up with misunderstandings, scandals, that 
it is time to end all these shameful deeds, who ever has a Chris- 


tian heart and soul, full of good faith, will re Joyce, that the U- 
niates have an established Episcopal See. From the new bishop we 
expect to see righteousness, understanding and no partiality, and 
above all, love for the people without any party affiliation. 

5. The Rusin newspaper "SVOBODA" organ of the "RUS'KIJ NAROD- 
NIJ SOJUZ" states: 

The. Bishop was a Provincial of the Order of St. Basil the Great 
, he was nominated for the Rusins in the United States of America, 
with the title "DAVILIA" an ancient place in Fokidia on the border 
of Boetia, Greece. Therefore the appointed Bishop is "in partibus 
in fidelium" i.e., That he may ordain priests, will be an interme- 
diator between the Latin Rite Bishops and our people . The newly ap- 
pointed bishop is known in Galicia for his practical missionary 
work, his patriotism, and that he is a great hearted Rusin, "UKRAI- 

6. The Russian newspaper "POSTUP" (Action), New York,N.Y. - 
Also speaks about the newly appointed bishop Soter Ortynsky. 

At the appointment of such a man as Monk Ortynsky as a Bishop 
no respectable Rusin can be happy, because Soter Ortynsky ia a 
product of Polish Jesuits, a great enemy of the Russian people .Who 
ever heard sermons of the Basilians in Galicia, especially Soter 
Ortynsly's, who attended their services in the monastery, who read 
their paper "MISSIONAR", all know that the Basilians in Galicia - 
want to Polonize the Rusins to push them into Roman Catholicism , 
to Poland. Such is the servant of the Polish Jesuits. Fr. Soter Or- 
tynsky a Basilian, who through them received a Bishop's crown . 
There are many such people who received high offices for the be- 
trayal of people . The newspapers and the people know him , they 
wrote many a times about Ortynskys Jesuit tricks. Not once, he de- 
famed forom the pulpit respectable Rusin patriots, simply to plea- 
se the Poles. On account of such reasons Soter Ortynsky will re- 
main the same for the Greek Rite Catholics. 


So juz. "SVOBODA" May 2,1907 .p. 5. 

When the facts were published about the appointment of Fr. So- 
ter Ortynsky, OSBM. , for the United States of America, the people - 
began to talk. Especially in the newspapers the A.R.Viestnik of - 
the Sojedinenije, prescribed to itself the merit) that a bishop - 
is appointed. They are also suprised that the man appointed is not 
from Hungary. 

When Fr. Theophan Obuskivic (from Galicia), Editor of the"PRA- 
DA" lost hope in getting getting a bishops crown., he began to do 
his .• - work: Eine gute Liebe zum boesen spiel. Hladik in the 
newspaper "POSTUP" was naming him as a "BETAR". The Hungarian news- 
papers wrote that the Greek Rite Catholics bishop should been Fr . 
Andrew Hodobay, or some one from Hungary, but, not an UKRAINIAN. 

What is the "KURYER NOVOJORSKI" saying, which is read in many 
homes of the Rusins ? 

The title of the article is " THE ENEMY OF THE POLISH PEOPLE 

We recived information concerning the newly appointed dignita- 
ry of the Rusin Church is coming to the United States, from this 
information, it appears that Fr. Soter Ortynsky is a real rebel , 


(hajdamak) he is a promotor of their same ideals politically and 
sociaally, he is considered as the most radical member of his re- 
ligious Order 


A.R.Viestnik May 10,1907. p. 4.) 

A meeting was called by one of the oldest working priests in 
the United States of America. 

On May 14, 1907 at 10.00 A.M. the clergy and delegates began to as- 
semble in Pittsburgh, Pa. , At. 11.30 A.M. a nice group was present 
when Fr. Cornelius Laurisin announced, that he was informed that - 
many clergy and delegates will arrive in the afternoon. To have a 
valid meeting it was postponed to 2.00 P.M.. Accepted. 

At 2.00 P.M. all were present Fr. Cornelius Laurisin explained 
the reason of this meeting, stating :I am the oldest priest and it 
was proposed by my altar brothers to call a meeting concerning 
the welcome of the bishop. Now it is up to you, but, first we must 
select a Chairman, and two recording secretaries. 

Fr. Cornelius Laurisin was selected as a Chairman, JohnUhrin, 
Vice Chairman and Basil Tylavsky, recording secretary Fr. Nicholas 
Stef anovic . 

Fr. Cornelius Laurisin ,the meeting should consider 

the fact that Rome appointed for the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins of 
the United States of America, a Bishop Soter Ortynsky, who will 
arrive soon in the United States of America. The office of the Bi- 
shop demands, that when he arrives in the United States of America 
he is welcomed worthily, by his spiritual children. This is the - 
way we will greet and welcome the Bishop. There will be many dif- 
ferent suggestions about the welcome. 

Fr. Cornelius Laurisin asked: ARE WE TO WELCOME THE BISHOP OR 
NOT ? If yes, how are we to welcome him. Should we only personal- 
ly without any celebration welcome him. One of the problems is , 
that we do not know the date or time of Bishop's arrival offici- 
ally, secondly the bishop will be only a titular "in partibus in- 
fidelium" We do not know what kind of authority will he have, to 
welcome him properly. Let us not make a mistake, as when we were 
welcoming the Apostolic Visitator Fr. Andrew Hodobay. 

Others said regardless of the circumstances, we must welcome 
the Bishop with a good spirit. Prepare a program ahead, and the 
speakers. So spoke Fr. Joseph Hanulya, Emil Kubek and Elias Gojd- 

The Chairman replied: No one cannot deny the fact that Rome - 
appointed for the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins a bishop, namely So- 
ter Ortynsky. I personally received information from the Apostolic 
Delegate from Washington, D. C. , that Rome appointed for the Greek 
Rite Catholic Rusins in the United States of America Bishop Soter 
Ortynsky. Therefore we have a bishop Titular or not, we have one. 
It is said that our bishop will not have full jurisdiction, but - 
will be subjected to the Latin rite bishops. Furthermore, that - 
the Latin rite bishops will demand the deed of the church proper- 
ty be deeded in trust of him, and not our bishop. This we can ac- 
cept as official information. There were other opinions also, but 
that does not mean, that we cannot welcome our bishop, when he ar- 
rives in America. The welcome is our obligation which we must do 


out of respect. This we do, if any European Bishop would come to 
the United States. 

There are news also that Archbishop Andrew Septicky,of Lvov - 
Galicia will come with our Bishop. We must show the world that we 
will welcome him also, as other nationals would welcome their own 
bishops . 

FR. Gornelius Laurisifi proposed, to welcome both dignitaries 
and during the time of welcome, we could explain to our Bishop the 
unjusticed and needs, also hoping for the best in our Bishop. 

The Editor of the A.R.Viestnik, Paul Zsatkovics made a request 
to have the names of clergy and delegates, which are as follows: 
Fr. Nicholas Szabados, Patton,Pa., Fr. Eugene Szatala, Andrew Ov- 
sak, Fr, Gabriel Csopey, Perth Amboy, .N.J. , Andrew Zbojan, Julius 
Csucska, Michael Moroz, John Sember, Michael Hrabar,Alex Kirnak, 
Johnstown, Pa Peter Dzmura, Michael Hathazy, John Svecz,Braddock,Pa 
Mitro Biszaha, Joseph Karaffa, Toronto, Ohio. Fr. Elias Gojdics, - 
Joseph Adzima, Bridgeport, Conn. , Fr. Emil Kubek, Mahanoy City, Pa. 
FR. John Korotnoki, George Smoley, John 01eksa,J. Kupa, Allegheny, 
Pa., Fr. Emil Burik, Michael Kusz, Michael Babe j , Julius Krenicky, 
Cleveland, Ohio. Fr. B. Tutkovics, Butler, Pa, John Bungen, John - 
Krenicky, Fr. Ireneus Janiczky, Passaic, N.J. Fr. John Szabo, Pitts- 
burgh, Pa., John Balinka, Julius Pasztelyi, Monessen,Pa. , John Bar- 
na, Fr. Staurovsky Paul, Donora, Basil Lukacs, Peter Budtilka, Mc- 
Keesport,Pa. , Fr. Roman Volinec, Michael Bojtun, Fr. Joseph Caplin- 
sky, N.Y. N.Y., Fr. Peter Lucedko, McKees Rocks,Pa, Fr Alexius Du- 
dinszky, Michael Szabo, S.Sharone,Pa. , Fr. Alexius Holozsnyay, Mi- 
chael Yuhasz, Andrew Bugos, John Lesko, Homestead, Pa Michael Bod- 
rog, Yonkers, N.Y., Fr. Nicholas Stefanovic, Cyril eieli, Clairton, 
Pa., Fr. Cornelius Laurisin, Paul Zsatkovics, Editor of the A.R.W. 
Michael Pacuta, Sojedinenije Secretary. 

Present 22, clergy, 32 delegates, total 54. 

Fr. Cornelius Laurisin proposed; when the bishop will arrive , 
we will welcome him in the name of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins . 
The selected committies are: Fr. Cornelius Laurisin, Fr. Nicholas 
Sztecovics, Fr. Gabriel Csopey, Rec. Secretary of Perth Amboy, N.J. 
Fr. Ireneus Janiczky, Passaic, N.J. Fr. Joseph Caplinsky, N.Y.C., - 
Joseph Zsdy, Brooklyn, N. Y. , Joseph Adzima, Bridgeport, Conn. , Ste,- 
phen Jadlovsky, Jersey City,N.J., Cantors: Michael Babe j , Cleve- 
land, Ohio., Andrew Gela, Braddock,Pa, Andrew Ovsak, Tr auger, Pa :. - 
and the three Rusin Organizations: Sojedinenije, Sojuz, Obscestvo 
Presidents and Editors of A.R.V. , Svoboda, and Pravda. 

This Committee is authrized to prepare the necessary matters 
for the welcome of our bishop, also preparing in case of the Arch- 
bishop Metropolitan of Lvov would arrive . The Committee should 
meet as soon as possible to make up the program, which will be 
published in our Rusin newspapers . 

FR. Lucecko proposed a discussion on how the expenses will be 
covered ? All understood well, that such a project needs money . 
There were many opinions, some wanted to burden the clergy with - 
the expenses, others the churches. Finally John Uhrin, President 
of the Sojedinenije proposed, that the clergy make a collection 
in their churches and all Rusin Societies make collections among 
themselves . Accepted . 

Fr. Nicholas Stefanovic was selected as a treasurer, but de- 
clined on account of the distance. Fr. Gabriel Csopey was elected, 


Perth Amboy, N.J. All money collected for the welcoming of the Bi- 
shop is to be sent to Fr. Gabriel Csopey. 

A.R. VIESTNIK, May 30, 1907. p. 4 

At the discussions concerning the expenses of the Bishops wel- 
come it was proposed, that the clergy pay for it, because it 
would not be polite to collect for such a project.. May approved 
this proposal. But, this proposal was not accepted, because the 

Bishop will be not only for the clergy, but also for the faithful 
of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins, they are to be included in pay- 
ing for the expenses . We are living in the United States of Ameri 
ca, where we are working together in the interest of all. Therefore 
shame in such collections does not exist. It would be shame for us 
if we did not fulfill our obligation. 

Finally it was decided that a committee welcome the Bishop at 
the pier, and all will travel to New York, where the Bishop will - 
be introduced to all at a banquet, which will be given in honor of 
the Bishop, etc. etc. 

Fr. John Korotnoki made a remark, that we need a Bishop who - 
will correct all that we have ruined 

Fr. Joseph Hanulya requested that our meeting of the Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Rusins in the United States be held, soon. 

The Bishop, first will go to Rome, will visit Bishop Julius - 
Firczak and Bishop Drohobecky and will be consecrated on Thomas 
Sunday. For the consecration no civil authorities were invited , 
With this he proved that he is not dependent on the Old-country - 


On August 27, 1907 at noon Bishop Soter Ortynsky arrived in 

Hoboken, N.J. on the SS. Kaiser Wilhelm II, where he was welcom 

ed by Fr. Theophan Obuskevic. At. 4.00 P.M. the Bishop arrived 

at St. George Greek Rite Catholic Church, New York,N.Y., where 

Continue on p. 5 8. 


a multitude of people and 40 priests were waithing fot the Bishop 
At the church doors Fr. Joseph Caplinsky, the pastor welcomed 
the Bishop presenting him the church keys, bread and salt. 

A moleben (prayer service) was celebrated at which Fr. Cornelius- 
Laurisin welcomed the Bishop in the name of all the Greek Rite Catho- 

After the service a banquet was held in honor of Bishop Soter Or- 
tynsky at which the following spoke: Fr. Emil Kubek, Mahanoy City, Pa 
Fr. Gabriel Csopey, Perth Amboy,N.J. and the Bishop. 

The Bishop began his speach with the following : I was nominated 
contrary to the wishes of the United States of American bishops , and 
twelve Cardinals of Rome . In Rome some of the 1 authorities re- 
quested my resignation. I turned to my friends for advise, the advise 
was not to resign 


ARV. October 31,1907 .p. 4. 

The report of the Greek Rite Catholic Clergy Meeting in the Uni- 
ted States of America, held in New York,N.Y. October 15,16,1907 . Af- 
ter the Pontifical Divine Liturgy 76 clergymen met in the Arlington 
Hotel, 19-23 Marks Place, New York,N.Y., Fr.s: Roman Volinec and Nes- 
tor Volensky were appointed secretaries. 

1. After residing the program the following projects were taken 
up: the financial support of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop. After a 
lenghty discussion it was decided inanimously that the Greek Rite 
Catholic Churches to pay as Eparchial support five percent of their 
total monthly income. 

2. The arrangement of the Parish boundries, deaneries be set 
with the approval of the Bishop. 

3. To organize a self supporting parish, it must consist of 200 
families, if less it would depend on the Bishops judgement. 

4. To secure the clergy in their old age, a society to be orga- 
nized with statutes. The following were instructed with this work : 
Fr.s Emil Kubek, Nicholas Stefanovic, Cornelius Laurisin, Gabriel Cso« 
pey, and Joseph Hanulya. 

5. It was proposed to divide the territory into nine Deaneries: 
1. Shenandoah, Pa., 2. Pittsburgh, Pa. , 3. New York,N.Y., 4. Ansonia 
Conn. 5. Philadelphia, Pa. , 6. Wilkes Barre,Pa., 7. Johnstown, Pa., 8. 
Chicago, Illinois, 9. Cleveland, Ohio. 

6. Each priest must send in his yearly report to the Chancery 
and the Bishop will classify the parishes. 

7. There will be a few priests, who will do only missionary du- 
ty. Mission parishes may have a hall, which will serve as church and 

Without the permission of the Bishop, lots cannot be bought nor 
churches built. 

8. To print an atymological RUSIN book and a Catechism .The fol- 
lowing are selected for this project: Fr.s: Emil Kubek, PeterKeselyak 
Nestor Volensky, Teofan Obuskevic, Valentine Gorzo, Joseph Biszaha , 

Makar and Joseph Caplinsky. This committee will also invite 
qualified educators to work with them. 

In each parish there must be a school for children. 
9. Proposal for Cantor Teachers. 

a. Have a Cantors school at the seminary 

b. No Cantor -teacher can not take up a position or be releaved 


of, his position without the consent of th Bishop. 

c. The priest and Trustees may discharge the Cantor with the - 
Bishops approval . 

d. The Bishop will appoint a commission of a priest and two Can- 
tors to examine those Cantors who do not have a diploma. 

e . Cantors who are appointed through a selection are under the 
Bishops jurisdiction. 

f. Every Cantor must know the melodies of the Uhro-Rusin and 
the Galician Plain Chant, to be able to serve either group. 

100 The Bishop is to decide the stole fee for the priest and Can 

11. An orphanage is a must. Committee will be selected for that 
purpose . 

12. The Bishop is to try to get Sisters to teach in our schools 

13. Concerning the cathedral, residence, seminary more committee 
men will be appointed. 

The Executive Committee is selected by the Bishop. All the cler- 
gy obligate themselves to give two percent of their salary and 
the Cantors one percent, towards the cathedral, residence and se- 
minary fund. The Eparchial treasurer will be controlled by the 

ARV. October 15-16,1907. 

14. The following were appointed to write the history of the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church in the United States of America: Fr.s: Alex- 
ander Dzubay, Emil Kubek , Cornelius Laurisin, Stephen Gulovics Sr, 
John Korotnoky, Joseph Caplinsky, Gregory Hruska and Paul Zsatko- 

15. To compile a Schematism-Directory for 1908. Every priest and 
secretary to write the history of their church: Who were the pri- 
ests, cantors, how many families in the parish, souls, male, fe- 
male, children, boys and girls. Value of the property, mortgage 
etc. etc. 

Seventy six clergymen were present who signed a pledge that - 
they will be loyal to the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop, five priest 
mailed in their pledge. The Bishop concluded the meeting, with a 

Given by the Greek Rite Catholic Chancery. 

Philadelphia, Pa. October 26,1907. 

SEAL Signed by : Fr. Vladimir Petrovsky 

"American Ecclesiastical Review" New York,N.Y." 
Vol. XXXVII pp. 457 - 467 November 1907. 

Sometime before 1890 a number of Ruthenian priests in the U- 
nited States had addressed to the S. Congregation of the Propagan_ 
da a petition, in which they set forth difficulties of administer- 
ing to the spiritual needs of the Ruthenian Catholics owing to* the 
impossibility of coming to an understanding with the American au- 
thorities of the Latin rite, who alone held jurisdiction in the 
States. The petitioners therefore solicited the establishment of 


a separate Apostolic Vicariate, through which the priests of the 
Greek Rite might obtain the necessary faculties for the exercise 
of their ministry. 

Before considering Rome's answer to this request it is neces- 
sary to state that the lack of harmonious action between the bi- 
shops of the United States and the clergy of the Greek Rite in 
communion with the Holy See. Arose partly from the novelty of the 
situation suddenly brought about the large influx from Austria- 
Hungary of immigrants who had a liturgy obviously different from 
the Roman liturgy, and an ecclesiastical discipline which appear- 
ed to depart somewhat from the accepted canons of Apostolic tra- 
dition as interpreted in the Latin Church. The fact that some of 
the Greek Rite priests who claim doctrinal allegiance to Rome 
and jurisdictional dependence upon the Holy See, where were marri- 
ed men , that they ignored the ecclesiastical authorities in Ame- 
rica and claimed the right of exercising pastoral faculties under 
a title granted them by their former Ordinaries in Europe, caused 
a protest on the part of the American bishops against the intro- 
duction of a foreign rite into a country to whose population such 
novelty would be a source of confusion. 

The Holy See was therefore fully aware of the difficulties - 
on both sides. Prudent measures were needed to obviate misunder- 
standings and complications. To require the abandonment in Ame- 
rica of the traditional liturgy of the Greek rite Uniates would 
be to ignore both the strong hold which national devotion has 
upon the common people, and considering their number be unjust, 
to deny them a liberty of worship which was the source of the 
independence, and prosperity enjoyed by the Catholics of the u- 
nited States in the exercise of their religion. 

The first step towards the Amelioration of the conditions - 
complained of was an instruction addressed by the Holy See to 
the Austro-Hungarian bishops, demanding that they recall at on- 
ce to their original jurisdiction all the married priests who 
had settled in the United States. None, but celibate priests we- 
re hereafter to be sent to the American dioceses . This decree 
was issued in October 1890. 

Some months later, in May 1892, the bishops of the United 
States were advised of the above measures, and also of the obli- 
gation imposed on missionary priests of the Greek rite who came 
to America, to present themselves to the Latin Ordinary of the 
locality in which they wished to exercise pastoral functions , 
so as to obtain from him the necessary faculties and instruc- 
tions. They were to subject to the local bishop as long as they 
served in the capacity of missionaries in the United States. (1) 


Simultaneously with these proceedings arrangements were be- 
ing made to effect practical measures whereby the local hierar- 
chy would be enabled to control the Greek rite people who had 
no priest of their own to administer to them, so that they 
might be served by the Latin clergy. In 1894 Leo XIII issued a 
decree which laid down certain rules to facilitate facilitate - 
communication between Greek and Latin rite Catholics in worship 


and in administration of the Sacraments . (Pope Benedict XIV. I his 
constitution "Demandatum" 24, December 1743 for Greek rite Melch- 
ites of the Turkish dominion) . 

Later on, 1, May 1897, there was issued another instruction 
which still further extended the privileges of intercommunion; it 
practically permitted all Greek rite Catholics to conform to the 
Latin rite while resident in America. At the same time the Holy 
See urged upon the Latin bishops within whose dioceses large num- 
ber of Greek rite, and especially Ruthenian Catholics were to be 
found, that they delegate some able and trustworthy member of 
the Ruthenian clergy or a Latin priest likely to be acceptable 
to them, to act as the bishop's vicar and pastoral representative 
in matters pertaining to the administration of their affairs . 
Such has been the status of ecclesiastical legislation concerning 
the Greek rite Catholics in the United States up to very recent 
times . 

Owing to what must appear as a want of energetic or intelli- 
gent cooperation with the Holy See on the part of some of our 
clergy into the Russian Schismatic Church. In many cases ,too , 
Oriental priests acting like adventurers anxious to enrich them- 
selves, have established independent congregations, exercising 
faculties without right or jurisdiction on the one ' hand " and 
without let or hindrance , for fear of popular disturbances , on 
the other. Probably the largest portion of these Catholics be- 
long to the Slav nation, known as Ruthenians. A new phase of ec- 
clesiastical administration has just been entered upon, in their 
behalf by the publication of a document appointing a bishop who 
is to exercise vicarious jurisdiction and to safeguard the ec- 
clesiastical rights of Ruthenian Greek rite Catholics in the U- 
nited States. 


By the Apostolic letter "EA SEMPER" (Annalecta of this num- 
ber pp. 512 ff. dit. 16 September 1907. DE EPISCOPO RUTHENI RITUS 

DE CLERO RUTHENO. DE FIDELIBUS ) Pius X places all Catholics 

of the Ruthenian Greek rite, resident in the United States, under 
the care of direction of a bishop of the same rite, who is to re- 
ceive his jurisdiction from Ordinaries in whose dioceses he is 
to perform his ministration. The letter, under date of 24 June 
the feast of St. Basil the Great, Patriarch of the Eastern Church 
is addressed to the Apostolic Delegate, the Most Rev. Diomede 
Falconio, who is to communicate the same to the members of the 
hierarchy, and on whom devolves the supervision of its faithful, 
observance in all cases. In a brief introduction the Soveriegn 
Pontiff set forth the motive which propted the document, and ex- 
presses the confident hope that its observance will produce sa- 
lutary effects, tending to true union in faith and charity. Then 
follow an exposition of the offices of the newly appointed bish- 
op and the code of laws to be observed in the relations of the 
bishop with the clergy and people. These laws are set forth in 
36 articles, grouped under four heads: POSITION OF THE RUTHENIAN 



The Ruthenian Bishop is appointed directly by the Holy See 
without intervention at present, of the votes of the American bi- 
shops or the clergy . In the same manner he recieves ' his primary 
jurisdiction immediately from Rome. Hence, although the exercise 
of that jurisdiction in different dioceses depends upon the con- 
sent of the local Ordinary, the Ruthenian bishop renders the ac- 
count of his administration to the Apostolic Delegate become as 
the representative of the Holy See. In like manner the Apostolic 
Delegate becomes the regular interpreter and custodian of the 
rights accorded to the Ruthenian bishop through the Ordinaries . 
Accordingly, all cases of contention or doubt that may arise in 
the exercise of the new bishop's functions, are to be referred 
for arbitration and settlement to the Delegate, who is on the 
ground and capable of familiarizing himself with the circumstan- 
ces and interests involved in the complaint. There remains of 
cource, the right of appeal to the immediate authority of Rome 
; but until the Holy See shall have reversed the former decision, 
it shall remain in actual force. 

The episcopal functions with the Ruthenian bishop is empowered 
to exercise, tend toward the maintanance, in its original integrity 
of the Oriental (Ruthenian) rite. He is to consecrate the Sacred 
Oils for the use of the Ruthenian clergy, to dedicte their chur- 
ches, administer the Sacrament of Confirmation in the Ruthenian 
Church, provided the latter are duly furnished with dimissorial - 
letters from the Ordinary to whose local jurisdiction they belong. 

The Ruthenian Bishop is commissioned likewise to make regular, 
and canonical visitations to the parishes and missions of his rite. 
For this he must obtain a written permission from each of the Ordi- 
naries whose diocese he visits and from whom he obtains the requi- 
site faculties for the exercise of his jurisdiction, whether it be 
instructive or corrective. According to pontifical prescriptions 
(Council of Trent Sess . XXIV, 3; Benedict XIV, Syn. IV, 3-3.) these 
canonical visitations should take place annually or at least every 
other year. On these occasions the rectors of churches are bound 
to present a detailed account of their administration, particularly 
of the income and the condition of property belonging to the mis- 
sion. The receipts of moneys for the church are to be credited to 
the congregation, and to be kept distinct from the salary and 
prerequisites of the pastor. All titles of church property are to 
be consigned to the Ordinary or to trustees of whom the Ordinary 
approves. The result of these visitations is to be communicated to 
the bishop in whose diocese they have taken place by way of a re- 
port upon moral and economic standing of the Ruthenian parishes 
Apart from this, the Ruthenian bishop is obligated to make an ac- 
curate and complete triennial report concerning the moral and ma- 
terial status of the Ruthenian parishes in the United States to 
the Apostolic Delegate, who is to transmit the same to the S. Con- 
gregation of the Propaganda. 

The salary of the Ruthenian bishop is to be supplied in a man- 
ner simular to that of the cathedraticum, that is to say a propor- 
tionate taxation of the different Ruthenian communities for whose 
benefit the Ruthenian bishop acts. Ordinarily the rules laid down 
in respective diocesan status for the maintainance of the episcop- 


al dignity are to be observed. The Ruthenian bishops residence for 
the time being to be in Philadelphia, Pa. 


The priests who administer at present to the Ruthenian faithful 
are almost exclusively emigrants from Austria Hungary. In future 
their places are to be filled from the ranks of candidates educated 
in America, either in theological seminaries of their own, or so 
long as such seminaries have not been established) in the Latin se- 
minary of the American diocese in which they were born or have ac- 
quired domicile. Only such candidates as to take the vow of celi — 
bacy will be henceforth admitted to ordination in the United Stat- 
es. The Ruthenian bishop is required, nevertheless, to take active 
measures in concert with the Apostolic Delegate and the various Or- 
dinaries concerned , for the establishment of Ruthenian theological 
seminaries . 

In the meantime pastoral vacancies in the Ruthenian mission are 
to be filled by such Ruthenian priests as may be found suitable 
within the diocese where the vacancy exists. If a bishop has no Ru- 
thenian priest capable of assuming the responsibilities, he may ap- 
ly to any other bishop who can supply the need from the ranks of 
his own clergy. If all efferts to supply a Ruthenian priest from 
the American mission fail, the S. Congregation of Propaganda is to 
be notified and will take the responsibility of sending a priest. In 
respect of the qualifications necessary on the part of the Rutheni- 
an priest not ordained in America for assuming pastoral charge, the 
Sovereign Pontiff ordains that he be. a celibate or at least a widow 
er without children, of untainted reputation zeal piety, and suffi- 
ciently intelligent and cultured, a true priest, lucri non cupidus 
that is, not making of his priestly calling a business to enrich - 
himself; and lastly, free from any attachment to . political fac- 
tions . 

Every Ruthenian priest who is called to assume missionary work 
in the United States must obtain from the S . Congregation of the 
Propaganda a letter permitting his going to America and specifying 
the particular Ruthenian mission to which he is to go. All such 
priests, although, they remain perpetually incardinated iii the 
diocese from which they came receive and exercise their faculties 
in absolute independence of the Ruthenian Ordinary of the diocese 
of their origin during the time they spent in missionary work in 
the United States. They are not at liberty to return to their ori- 
ginal diocese at home, without the written consent of the Ordinary 
in whose diocese they are at the time doing missionary work. If 
they wish to transfer their pastoral charge from one diocese >to 
another, they need in every case the consent of the Ordinary to 
whose jurisdiction they wish to be transferred. They are instruct- 
ed to inform the Ruthenian bishop also. 

Ruthenian students who are candidates for Holy Orders no matt- 
er what may be the place of their birth or domicile, are: incardi- 
nated in that diocese whose bishop accepts them and at whose hand- 
s they take the oath of fidelity and stability in missionary ser- 
vice. If they wish later on to be affiliated to another diocese, , 
they require the consent of their Ordinary as well as that of the 
bishop into whose diocese they seek adoption. They are to inform 


the Ruthenian bishop of the charge. 

Ruthenian priests are removable ad notum Ordinarii loci; but, 
there must be a just and serious cause for the removal, lest it be 
the prejudice of the incumbent. Such changes are to be reported tp 
the Ruthenian bishop, presumably at the instance of the Ordinary - 
or through the chancellor. If a priest feel that he is unfairly, 
treated in the removal, he may lodge an appeal with the Apostolic 
Delegate at Washington, D.C., who is to give his decision within 
three months from the date of the appeal. In a last, instance re- 
cource may be had to the Holy See. But in all such cases of appeal 
which are termed in devolutivo, the previous judgement stands until 
it is reversed or amended. 

In regard to the salaries, perquisites, and genera] maintananr 
ce of the Ruthenian clergy , the rule laid down by the Third Plenary 
Council of Baltimore, interpreted by the diocesan statutes, are to 
be observed in accordance with custom and judgement of the Ruthte- 
nian bishop. 


The Ruthenian people who have their own pastors are subject to 
them and to the regulations of their native rite. As regards feast 
days and fasts , however they are free to conform to the legitimate 
customs of the district, in which they happen to dwell. On Sundays 
and on such holydays as are celebrated simultaneously in the Latin 
and Ruthenian churches, they are bound to conform to their own rite, 
in their own churches where they have such. On other days and whe- 
re they have no priest or church of their own rite or none conven- 
iently near, they should attend worship in the Latin church; but 
this act does not imply that they abandan their own rite. 

Any Catholic of the Ruthenian rite may go to confession to a 
Latin priest, even if there is a Ruthenian priest at hand. The fa- 
culties as well as the censures and reservations are the same for 
the Latin and Greek rite Catholics in the United States. 

If however , the Ruthenian Catholics have acquired an actual 
and permanent domicile in the United States and wish to pass over 
to the Latin rite, they are free to do so; but they must apply to 
the Holy See for permission; and if they should subsequently re- 
turn to their own country and feel of returning to their old form 
of worship, they may again apply to the Holy See and obtain leave 
to do so. 

A priest of the Latin rite who makes attempt to induce a Ruthe- 
nian Catholic to leave his own rite and to become attached to the 
Latin parish, falls under Apostolic censure ferendae sententiae. 

Concerning marriages between Ruthenian and Latin Catholics 
read the Canon law. 


Vidi: SECRET. Brevium Pius X. June 1907 . pp. 57-68 concerning 
the "EA SEMPER " Bulla. 




Rev. Leo I. Sembratovic, Chancellor of 
Metropolitan Septicky. Cfr. "AMERIKA" 
Daily, Philadelphia, Pa July 29,1965 p. 2 
Also: Kalendar PROVIDINIJA, 1956. p. 71. 

Having a Ukrainian Catholic hierarchy in Canada and the Unit- 
ed States is regarded by Ukrainians and non-Ukrainians as a normal 
matter, but there was a time when this was also regarded as an im- 

The Catholic Church, simular to any other church organizations 
does not generally recognize jurisdiction of two bishops oh "the sa- 
me territory. In Asia and Europe, however, there were few Excep — 
tions and this fact helped by the organization of the Ukrainian Ca- 
tholic Church in Canada and the United States. 

In West Ukrain, for example, there were THREE BISHOPS having 
jurisdiction on the same territory: Western Latin Catholic, Armeni- 
an and Ukrainian Catholic. There were two Catholic jurisdictions in 
the history of Uhro-Rus, Transylvania, Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia 
and in the Asian countries. Western Europe however, did .not know, 
of such a situation. Against the idea of two Catholic bishops on 
the same territory were opposed also by the Catholic hierarchs in 
Canada and the United States. 

Dispite all this, t v 3 Ukrainian Catholics in the United States 
received their own bishop in 1907. This happened through the great 
efforts of Metropolita Septicky, who knew, that emigrants to the . 
New World would be Latinized and Latinization of the Eastern rite 
is contrary to the Vatican policy, where Ukrainians are reguarded 
as future missionaries of the East of Europe on behalf of the Uni- 
ty with the Holy See . 

Some people think that the Convention of the clergy and faith= 
ful in Harrisburg, Pa, in 1902 brought about the nomination of the 
Ukrainian Catholic bishop in the United States . That is not true . 
The Convention was an emanation of the religious and national dis- 
orders and could not have any influence on the decision of the Ho- 
ly Father. As a secretary to Metropolitan Septicky I can testify 
what brought about the nomination and how the Ukrainian Catholics 
got their first bishop. 

From dispatches from America, Metropolitan Septicky knew all 
the problems of the Ukrainian Catholics in the New World .Ukrainian 
Catholics, attacked from all sides, could have been either Latiniz- 
ed or swallowed by Russian Orthodox Church. Either of these alter- 
natives was not acceptable to the Ukrainians and was contrary to 
the Holy See's directives- The Ukrainian Catholic Church of the 
Greek rite had to be preserved and for this reason Metropolitan A 
Septicky decided to swing into action. 

Special memorandums v/ere prepared and sent to the Holy Congre- 
gation of Faith and Holy Congregation of Eastern Churches The com- 
munications of Metropolitan were sent to His Holiness Pope Pius X. 
who favored the Metropolitan. To support a cause of the creation 
of Ukrainian Catholic Bishops See in America. Metropolitan Septicky 
made many trips to the Vatican, some of them in short succession - 
when it became known that the Pope received unfavorable reports and 
protests from som-i Catholic bishops of the Latin rite. one of these 


journeys the Metropolitan made as a very sick person, in complete 
disregard of his health. 

Thanks to these untiering and firm actions of the Metropolit- 
an His Holiness, Pope Pius X. finally decided to nominate the first 
bishop for Greek Rite Catholics in America. 

After everything was decided, a new problem, a very serious one 
came into being. The majority of the Eastern rite Catholics in A- 
merica were Ruthenians from Carpatho -Rus ,Carpatho Ruthenia, a ter- 
ritory under Hungarian rule. The Hungarians who had strong positions 
and influence in Austro-Hungarian Empire, were afraid that the Ukra- 
inian bishop in America would undermine their influence on the faith- 
ful Ruthenian clergy in Carpatho Rus and their rule in the territory 
demanded that the first bishop of Greek rite in America be chosen 
from the ranks of the Ruthenians (not the politL cally conscious - 
Ukrainians) . Through their influence the Rev. Andrew Hodobay from 
Carpatho:-Rus was nominated as Apostolic Visitator to America with 
the understanding that he was to become first Rusin rite bishop in 
America. Metropolitan Septicky started to act again. 

A new visit tc the Vatican by Metropolitan Septicky. Finally 
convinced His Holiness, Pope Pius X. that the first bishop for the 
Greek rite Catholics in the United states should be a Ukrainian 
from west Ukrain, who would successfully counteract the Russian Or- 
thodox church leaders , supported by the tzar . 

And so the Provincial of St. Basil the Great Monastery, Very 
Rev. Stephen Soter Ortynsky was chosen to be the first bishop of 
the Greek rite in the United States of America. 

March 26, 1907, Very Rev. Soter S. Ortynsky was nominated Bi- 
shop and consecrated by Metropolitan Septicky and bishops: Chekho- 
vych and Khomisyn in St. George Cathedral in Lvov on May 12 1907 
Shortly after, Bishop Soter Ortynsky went to the Vatican to pre- 
sent himself to His Holiness Pope Pius X., to Vienna to present 
himself to the Emperor Franz Joseph I., to Budapest, Uzhorod and 
Presov and finally on August 28, 1907 statted his journey to the 
United States of America as the first Ukrainian bishop for the 
Greek Rite Catholics. 


Sojuz "SVOBODA" Nov. 21 
1907 p. 4. 

The "EA SEMPER" is forbidding the Greek Rite Catholics as fal-' 
lows : 

1. To have married clergy. 

2. To be self governing. 

3.'. To make particular Church Laws. 

4. To keep Holydays and Fasts even when there is no church. 

5. To return the Latinized Rusins to the Greek rite. 

6. To have the right to bring up children in the Greek rite 
religion in mixed rite marriages. 

According the "EA SEMPER" Bulla our Greek rite Catholic clergy 
are tied with chains ...... 

The new Bulla "EA SEMPER" given to the Rusins in the United - 
States of America seems to oppose the previous Bullas of Popes : 
Leo X. 1521, Clement VII. 1526, Paul V. 1615, Urban VII. 1624, Be- 
nedict XIV 1751. These Bullas oppose the cathogorical change of 


rite from Greek rite to the Latin rite. 

In these burning, acute matters of the Greek Rite Catholic Ru- 
sins, being that the Bulla was announced, we have the right to - 
protest strongly against it. We have the right to be equals and 
demand, that we be treated as equals as other nationals in the 
Catholic Church throughout - the world. 

The Bulla given by Rome concerning the Greek Rite Catholic 
Church in the United States of America, is not a good will, thus 
we consider it, as non existing and we will by all means oppose it. 

Let our authorities judge us, their way, but we in the free- 
land of America cannot act otherwise. 

Not only we the Rusins of the United States of America, but we 
hope that even in the Old-country they will be sending thundering 
protests in defense of the laws of our Church in the United States 
of America. 

The Old-country should take note, that a simular present as 
this Bulla is for us, will soon be given to them in the coming 

All respectable clergy, all consciencess Rusins, all Greek 
rite Catholic souls are obligated to send protests against the 
Bulla to our bishops, we hope that they will not go against' the 
people, but will stand up bravely, lead us defending ourselves 
with all our strenght protesting against the ill laws of the Greek 
rite Catholic Church 

Let us all work bravely for our cause. 


Sojuz "SVOBODA" December 19,1907. pp. 1-4. 

In the last issue of the "SVOBODA" it was stated that the Greek 
rite Catholic clergy renounced the Latin rite Bishops guardianship 
and their jurisdiction. We have our own bishop under who's juris- 
diction we are. The question is, will all the clergy do likewise 
the future will tell the story. I am in the United States of Ame- 
rica for the past 15 years, worked in different parishes, permit- 
me to recommend that all our parishes have a meeting this month - 
and resolve that all will recognize only our bishop, as an autho- 
rity and we do not wish to have anything in common to do with 
the Latin rite bishops . At the same time resolve that our clergy 
from now on cannot nor dare to belong to the Latin rite bishops - 
jurisdiction. We will not support him, nor want him to be our spi- 
ritual leader. 

All correspondance from the Latin rite bishops must be return- 
ed, not accepted. This declaration all the clergy must sign, must 
be approved by the trustees and notarized and mailed to the Latin 
rite bishops. ( Here we mean those bishops who announced the Pa- 
pal Bulla and who do not want to give up our churches from their 

Parishes which had signed over their churches through the 
priests, have the right at the meeting to decide to transfer the 
church property to our bishop. Doing so our parishes will demon- 
strate that they are not recognizing the Latin rite bishops, but 
our own Greek Rite Catholic bishop. It is recoomended that two e- 


lected delegates and the priest go to the Latin rite bishop with 
the petition to have the church property transferred on our Bish- 
op. If he will refuse, then we would be forced to take up a Court 
Process against him. The Court will force the Latin rite bishop - 
to sign over the property, because until the present day he was 
"jure caduco" trustee of our churches, not having our own Bishop 
From now on the Latin rite bishop should not be our trustee. If 
the Bulla is not announced in our church officially, it does not 
bind us, will never do so. 


We the undersigned clergy resolved, that we are protesting a- 
gainst the Bulla sent to us by the ASpostolic See, with the under- 
standing that all the clergy with our Bishop leading us, we join- 
tly sign and the bishop will forward it to the Apostolic See in 
Rome . This is the best way to appease the people , to defend our 
privileges, which the Bulla is obrogating. 

Given in Wilkes Barre,Pa. December 19,1907 
Fr.s Nicholas Csopey Theophan Obuskevic 

Michael Jackovics Acacius Kaminsky 

Alexander Kossey Dr. Theodosius Vaszocsik 

John Szabo Michael Bendasz 

Gabriel Csopey Thomas Szabo 



January 2, 1908 

Concerning the "EA SEMPER" Bulla I was silent, Some of my ene- 
mies were questioning me about the Bulla. I also noticed that so- 
me of our Rusin people were angry on account of my silence, called 
me a traitor. The Bishop spoke about the little faith and what - 
does it mean to leave the Church. In Europe the agitators were not 
successful in their work, they came to the United States, where - 
they found followers and the newspapers became their helpers in 
which newspapers I was named a traitor. I am a RUSIN from the Car- 
pathian mountains (Galicia) , who loves his own people and stands 
by his people. Why are you causing trouble for the bishop, why do 
you not let us alone, we can take care of ourselves. We are not in 
need of your advise You are not interested in the Bulla, your only 
goal is to take over our Rusin people into your flock. 

The enemies of ours, should worry about themselves and not us. 
I am aware that not only our enemies are causing trouble for the 
Greek Rite Catholic Church, but also some of our own Rusins, who 
are writing articles in the newspapers. What is the cause of all 
this ? Some people are saying, that the Bulla is causing all the 
trouble. It is not the Bulla that causes the trouble, let me ex- 
plain the whole matter to you. 

One of the Fathers wrote me a letter, in which he says:" The 
Irish bishops are happy with the Bulla, because some of our Rusin- 
s will become schismatics, others will join the Latin rite Church, 
and some will be lost and finally the Greek rite Catholics will 
disappear, and peace will return". 

The Greek rite Catholic Rusin people are not standing on the 


Bulla, but, on the Rock of Peter, therefore the Bulla is not 
frieghtening us. The Bulla is not a dogma of Faith, an order,- 
which the Rusin people are opposing. Instead of thinking how are 
we to lay aside this Bulla, or if that is impossible, how can we 
evade it. Shouting will not give us advise, do not bring shame up- 
on ourselves with our shouting. Do not shout, but work hard as the 
first Christians, who in silence lived through their hardship and 
organized themselves. 

Are our Rusin people afraid of the Bulla ? Then what is ttoubl - 
ing you loud voiced people. Do you not know, that Card. 
gave out an order in 1892, that married priests cannot be missiona- 
ries in the United States of America. 

Where, were then the clergy and the people ?This Bulla is only 
a repetition of the previous order of 1892. 

It is known that the Latin rite bishops complained to Pome 
that the Greek Rite Catholic clergy are administering the Sacrament 
of Confirmation to children, which they should not do. The whole 
world knows that the Holy Apostolic See forbade the Italo-Greek 
priests to Confirm. Therefore this order likewise is only recopied. 
Where were the Eastern rite bishops and people then. Why didnt 
they protest. ? 

The Irish bishops expect all the Catholics in the United Stat- 
es of America have the same laws, petitioning Rome not to give s- 
pecial privileges to other rites, which the Latin rite do not ha- 
ve. The Latin rite clergy were always taking our Greek rite Cathol- 
ic people into their flock making them Latin rite people . WHY ? To 
show the world that they are in majority and their laws and order 
are stronger. This was done when Card. Ledechowski repeated the Bul- 
la for the Rusins in Brasil. 

We cannot be suprised of all this , how many of our Rusin people 
joined the Latin rite, furthermore do our children care for the Ru- 
sin language ? They are forgetting about their Church, rite, becoming 
Latinized. People who love their own, will never join others and - 
give up their own. 

The people are aware, that a. Greek rite Catholic bishop is com- 
ing to the United States of America. There is no Cathedral church 
for the bishop, no residence. Why didnt you plan for all this, then 
the bishop at his arrival could of opened an Eparchy, to become e- 
qual with the other Catholic bishops in the United States of Ameri- 

Why didnt the people notify Rome, that you will sign over your 
churches property in trust of your bishop, signed by the trustees 
and clergy. Of our churches we could of organized an Eparchy by 
adding the churches which were placed in trust of the Latin rite 
bishops . 

Who are we to blame ? The bishop who was not in the United 
States of America, or Rome, which is unVillingly giving you a bi- 
shop, or those who shout and did not do anything positive ? These 
are the facts , which will remain facts . 

I asked a Uhro Rusin, Do you read the newspaper ? He replied I 
do. What is your opinion, do you think that there was a need for a 
Greek rite Catholic bishop in the United States of America ? Or - 
was it too early to have one ? Do you not think, that here, it 
would been necessary to send out a devil with a broom, to sweep 
out the dirt, and then come an angel of the Lord to enlighten and 
teach the people ? 


No doubt there are respectable Rusins, who are humble and pius 
people, wishing to have people, because they love God, their Church" 
and are happy with their bishop, as are good children with their 

There are some people who consider everbody a swindler, an im- 
posture and are shouting, we are in a struggle for the people and 
their rights, church and Rite. 

If all our bishops and clergy here and in Europe would say 
that these shouthing people are honost, conscienteous , who want - 
good for the Greek Rite Catholic Church, I would bow to them and 
do everything that is possible. But , if the judgement would fall 
upon then, let them know that they are condemned. Let them know 
that they are the enemies of the Rusin Greek Rite Catholic Church 
and people. If this is not the truth, then I will bring facts 
which will prove my statements. 

All good minded people, please take in consideration the move- 
ments of the trouble makers ( I know their names.). 

When I arrived in the United States a stranger, I met the 
clergy who greeted me and told me about the whole program in New 
York,N.Y. The only thing I can add to this is thank you for your 
kindness. Naturally I followed the clergy where ever they led me. 
We arrived at the St. George Greek Rite Catholic Church in New 
York City. After the MOLEBEN-devotion I spoke to the people who 
were present. After that I was led to a Hotel, where I could of 
stayed as long as I wanted, as I was told. Tomorrow we will come 
for you, to have a Pontifical Divine Liturgy. The church was pack- 
ed with clergy and people. When we returned to the Hotel, where 
one of the priests presented to me $1,200.00, saying: Bishop now 
you can stay here as long as you wish, and pay only $25.00 for 
the room, that is the agreement we made with the manager, and all 
went their way. Yes, one priest remained, who was willing to take 
me to Philadelphia, Pa, and tu the Apostolic Delegate in Washing- 
ton, D.C. 

In Philadelphia, Pa. , there was nothing prepared for me in the 
apartment, so I left my belongings with the Cantor. Left for Wash- 
ington, D.C, then to South Fork, Pa, to bless the church , which 
blessing had been arranged in Europe. After I fulfilled my obli- 
gation, the local priest was aware that I have no place to go to 
he offered his rectory for my stay, which I accepted. 

May I ask you people , where could I have gone ? Only there 
where I was led. There was someone among us, who wrote an article 
in the newspaper "MAGYARORSZAG" as follows" " Bishop Soter Ortyn- 
sky arrived in the United States of America August 27,1907, went 
to the St. George Church in New York City, whereas there was a- 
nother church, but celebrated the Divine Liturgy only in the Ga — 
lician church. The rude writer if he would of looked at the pro- 
gram, he should of known, that I was led by the UHRO- RUSIN cler- 
gy to the St. George Church in New York City. The writer did not - 
tell the truth, that in New York city are two churches, there is 
only one church, the other church is in Brooklyn, N.Y. What was the 
aim of the writer with his article ? To let the Hungarian Govern- 
ment know, that the Uhro-Rusins are not considered at all by the 
bishop in the United States of America. Secondly to throw a block 
in front of the bishop, not to go staight forward. 

Was this deed an honost one for the Greek Rite Catholics and 
was this person sincere, when he wrote that article ? 


The same writer also wrote:" Bishop Ortynsky settled in Phi- 
ladelphia, Pa. , in a Galician Schismatic Church, whereas there was 
an Uhro-Rusin Church there. 

Neither is this true; there is no Galician Schismatic church 
in Philadelphia, Pa. , but one like the Uhro-Rusin church. The Bi- 
shop did not make two churches out of one, but the Uhro - Rusin 
priest, and the bishop united both churches, by becoming their pa- 
stor, thirdly the bishop did not settle down in either church, but 
went to South Fork, Pa. Why was this lie written ? To tell the Hun- 
garian Government, that the bishop is not favoring the UhroRusins, 
and that the bishop is a " PANS LAV " , Sapienti sat. 

I was occupied with my work, collecting material of the histo- 
ry of the people and churches, by visiting the churches. This 
peaceful work of mine was not satisfying many, they requested a 
battle, by setting their nets to catch the bishop. Their plans we- 
re, lets go after him and hit him hard, which will cause his 
death, then he will not be able to fight us. Let him know that we 
are strong. Others said: What will happen if we loose the battle, 
the people will not follow us, and we will be left alone. They 
should of stressed the power of the bishop, and the power of the 
friends, who were scattered all over looking for a bishop. 

On of the instigators went to the Irish bishop, reporting to 
him, that the new bishop will not recognize him, and will go i his 
own way. Church law in the United States says: that the Baltimo- 
re, Md. , Synod obligates our bishop also. Please advise him about 
this matter. The Irish bishop said to himself, he knows the Church 
law, which stresess the jurisdiction of a bishop. He replied I 
will do my best. Others came to me saying, the Irish bishops will 
not recognize you, without their permission you cannot act in their 
diocese. Bishop what is your opinion about the Irish bishops, let 
us know to advise our people about your opinion. 

The bishop seeing their sincerity that they wish to help him, 
said: Our first task is to have an Eparchy, to be equal with oth- 
er nationals. If you will deed your churches to me, then you will 
be helpful and we will progress in our work. It seem to me, that 
that was not the answer they were expecting from me . 

What happened, instead of getting down to work, they demanded 
from me to tell the people at a Convention, which are my rights — 
as a bishop. This we want to know by all means, otherwise we will 
not work with you nor accept you. 

The Convention must be held. Bishop you have promised us a - 
Convention when you arrived in the United States . ( They expected 
to corner the bishop.) . 

I replied, that it is too early to have a Convention, because 
. I do not know the people nor the circumstances of churches . In 
the meantime I received a letter from a priest, in which he stat- 
es that the Convention must be held to satisfy the minds of the 
people . In three days the Convention Program was set by me pub- 
lished in the newspapers . 

Soon the opposing party came to me , questioning me : Bishop why 
are you calling a Convention. It is too early. First we must con- 
sider the matter of the Convention, make up our program. Bishop - 
recall the Convention date. This I refused. Then they requested , 
that I meet at least with the delegates. ed, 

I was fully aware, that there is something in the air. I repli- 


the delegates are invited to the Convention. This is my final de- 

Soon the newspapers brought the news , not to attend the Con- 
vention , the bishop wants to fool the people , he called the dele- 
gates uneducated rams . They have done everything that was possib- 
le to stop the Convention. What happened ? With the help of God 
all the clergy and delegates came to the Convention. 

I dared to ask the good people if the motives of the - 
concerning the Greek Rite Catholic Church good or bad ? It - is 
strange, first there was a request for a Convention and now some 
one opposed it. The Convention was held and it was a successful - 
one . Now what am I to do ? The Convention adopted a resolution 
that each church pay five percent towards the bishops support and 
deed their churches in trust of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop, e- 
ven those churches which were put in trust of the Latin rite bi- 
shops . 

The dissatisfied began to spread news, that the Convention 
was only a council anting the bishop and people , which does not 
obligate no one. The delegates brought up the resolutions and a- 
dopted them, without the bishops influence, which validates the 
Convention , 

In the meantime a letter was brought from an Irish bishop con- 
cerning the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, which indicated, that the bishop - 
has no rights, this was to discredit me the bishop. I replied: I 
do not know about the Bulla, and I am not accepting this letter 
as a document. 

Instead of helping the bishop, the opposing party fought the 

The Papal Bulla "EA SEMPER" appeared in the United states vf 
America concerning the Greek Rite Catholic Church, an unmerciful 
degredation for us. The opposition, instead of conseling with the 
bishop, published articles in the "AMERIKANSKY RUSSKY VIESTNIK" - 
The bishop knew about the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, he betraid us,. It 
seemed to them thatthey conquered the bishop and destroyed him. 

Now, all wanted to know, what is the bishop going to do about 
the "EA SEMPER" Bulla. How will he defend himself, for. saying that 
he did not know about the Bulla. I was silent for a time. Finally 
I came out with the following answer : 

"Concerning the "EA SEMPER" Bulla given by Rome for the Rusins 
in the United States of America, I did not know about it here nor 
in Europe. Being in the United States of America for a month I 
was called to the Apostolic Delegate, Washington, D. C. , He advised 
me about the Bulla. Here I have in my hand a copy of a protest a- 
gainst the "EA SEMPER" Bulla. I considered unjust for the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church and the people. I at once protested and did 
not promulgate it to the clergy and people . 

That is all that I could of done. If this Bulla was most annoy- 
ing to anyone, it was to me. I was sure, that the clergy and * the 
people will help me in this matter, the contrary happened. I was 
planing how to save the Greek Rite Catholic Church the clergy and 
people. What happened, some of the clergy and lay people are try- 
ing to destroy the bishop and the Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

I am accused that I am giving over our Greek Rite Catholic 
Church to the Latin rite bishops by force. Did I not tell all, to 
deed the churches in trust of me, until you do so, you will not 


have a full powered bishop. What do you want ? To be Independent? 
Do not make shame for all of us . 

The Bulla is not permitting any married clergy to come to the 
United States of America. I was reported and accused, that I am 
importing married clergy to the United States of America and tell- 
ing the people , that I am importing celibate p riests to the Unit- 
ed States of America. 

The agents are shouting: people the Bulla will destroy us, pro- 
test. The bishop will not protest, he is a traitor. In the meanti- 
me telling the Church Authorities, that I am not upholding the - 

Bulla. . ^ , 

Reporting also, that the bishop favors only those priests who 
are subjected to the Latin Rite Bishops jurisdiction. That is a 
false statement. The people were silent until the clergy instruct- 
ed them to fight. 

I am accused of visiting people in Pittsburgh, Pa. , who are un- 
worthy of my visit. Why are they accusing the people and me ? Be- 
cause they deeded their church in trust of m e the bishop. Good 
people, you judge for yourself , where is all the falsehood lead- 
ing us ? . 

The only way the "EA SEMPER" Bulla will loose its strenght if 
you will support the Greek Rite Catholic bishop to establish a E- 
parchy. Our goal is to establish a Greek Rite Catholic Church in 
the United States of America, to have our own Eparchy and laws. 
If the first bishop resigns on account of the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, 
as some wish that I do. What will happen ? No, the bishop and the 
people will not permit the destruction of the Greek Rite Catholic 
Church in the United States of America. 

I wonder, where do the evil minded people want to drive the 
Rusin people ? The Lutherans, Schismatics, Unbelievers, etc. etc. 
say why do you not let the people know all ? They are accusing me, 
that I want to betray you people to the Latin Rite Bishops. THe 
people are aware who gave over in trust the church property tcthe 
Latin Rite Bishops. 

You are accusing the bishop, that he has no rights, but, you 
must also know that without an Eparchy what rights has a bishop . 
If the Eparchy would of been established before the arrival of the 
bishop, he would have full Episcopal power. 

You have established 120 churches amidst great struggles , so 
will the Eparchy be established with the help of God. Think , did 
you have the right to establish churches ? What ever is your reply 
I am declaring the following: That I have the right to establish - 
an Eparchy for the Rusins , and to have the churches property in 
trust. Who ever is obstructing such work is an enemy of the Church. 
I, the bishop did not come to the United States to become rich, 
to fool the people, but to fulfill my obligation concerning the 
Church and people, to give good account at the judgement day. 

Secondly, rightfully important is that our Greek Rite Catholic 
Church must remain a Catholic Church and not a Independent church , 
without a head, Father. I came to the United States of America to 
make order in the churches, no bishop will hinder me, if I take ca- 
re of our churches, which requests my guardianship, trusteeship. No 
bishop is my superior nor am I someones Vicar or as you claim, sac- 
restian. I am a bishop without a Eparchy, not a servant of the La- 
tin rite bishops, nor am I working for them. 


Rome for approval. 

My spiritual children have their laws, the laws of the- child- 
ren, which no one can take away from them, therefore they do hot 
need guardians . 

The following report was sent to the Apostolic Delegate, that 
I want to give autonomy to the people , for the five percent Cathe- 
draticum, which the New York Convention approved for me. Now I am 
asking the Delegates and clergy who were at the New York Conven- 
tion. Did I interfere, when the Convention was stressing the Bish- 
ops financial matters ? I only remarked, that I will accept sup- 
port from no one, because I know the children will take care of 
their Father. All present enthusiastically said "SLAVA" We donot 
want our bishop to be payed by the Government nor Rome. We can 
support him ourselves. The clergy and the delegates unanimously - 
approved the five percent for the support of the bishop. 

I am mentioning the unpleasant five percent Cathedraticum, be- 
cause the "AMERIKANSKY RUSSKY VIESTNIK" is saying:" The bishop 
does not want to give the people any rights and at the same time 
I was reported to my Church Authorities, that I am giving an au- 
tonomy in the church. 

You good people and clergy judge isnt there an evil, Pharisa- 
ical work. Do you want the bishop to be removed, why do you not - 
stop and think, what consequences could it bring if the bishop is 
removed . 

Dear Brothers, Clergy and People, sons of the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church. I am solemnly declaring, that I as a Greek Rite 
Catholic bishop appointed for the Rusin people and other national 
people of the same rite, that I will place all my strenght to se 
cure and defend the laws of our Church, help me. Fear not hard- 
ship, struggle, the struggle will bring life. The grace of God 
is stronger than the temptations of the evil sons. -Be assured 
that the bishop has done everything possible . The Bulla is not 
for the betterment of our Church. Let us unite, work -hard one 
for all and all for one. This can happen only among rigtheous 
people, who know that all power is given from above by God. 

Dear Brother priests notify me about the evil work of cer- 
tain people, that I may know how to overcome their evil deeds 
and what is your opinion in this matter ? 

Do not permit to publish articles in the AMERIKANSKY RUSSKY 
VIESTNIK, which brings shame upon us. 

1. Make order in the "SOJEDINENIJE", let them worry about 
their affairs and not Church matters. Let them not be bishops a- 
bove the SOJEDINENIJE members. Who lost the name GREEK RITE CA- 
THOLIC became independent, therefore they have no right to mix 
into our Church affairs. 

2. All you members of the SOJEDINENIJE call a meeting and 
read my letter. Let me know if you want to listen to the indepen- 
dent leaders of the AMERIKANSKY RUSSKY VIESTNIK or stay by the 
bishop and work hard for the Church and the Rusin people. 

3. Let the Editor of the AMERIKANSKY RUSSKY VIESTNIK know 
that you want him to stop writing against the Church Authority , 
or stop sending the newspaper to you, because you will not read 
it, and at the Convention demand your money for the newspaper 
you did not read. 

4. All the faithful sons of the Greek Rite Catholic Church 
regardless of which organization they belong, must see to it that 


order is made in the Church in one months time. I am giving you 
freedom to place your church under the guardianship of a bishop, 
whom ever you choose. I have under my jurisdiction 46 churches, 
and 24 under the Latin rite bishops , the others are independent 
churches . Be aware not to be without a shepherd and be lost for 
the Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

In the meantime pray for all who are persecuted with their bi- 
shop that they choose the righteous road. 

5 . I am not forbidding no one to leave the bishop and join 
the leaders of the AMERIKANSKY RUSSKY VIESTNIK. I am not forcing 
the Greek Rite Catholic Church on no one , it will live on and do 
not think that you are doing a favor for the Church. 

6. All the faithfull sons of the Greek Rite Catholic Church 
the following Sunday after the Divine Lityrgy, meet and select a 
reader to read my PASTORAL LETTER. In case something is notclear 
to you in it, let me know, I will explain it to you. Let others 
read the letter also. 

7. Please advise me, as to who are the in- instigators in 
your locality. 

8. All of you faithful live a good Christian life. 

9. Love your Church, religion, Christ is our light. 
Pray for me . 

Philadelphia, Pa. , January 2, 1908. 

Soter S . Ortynsky 



Sojuz,"SVOBODA" February 6 ; 13, 
21,-29, March 18,26, 1908. 


A protest was signed by 79 priests. The committee was to get 
the signatures of Fr Alexius Dudinsky, who is ill, and Fr. Emil 
Kubek who could not attend the meeting on account of his child- 
rens sickness. Some of the priests would not sign the protest, - 
those present accepted the following resolutions . : 

January 29, 1908 we presented ourselves to Bishop Soter S. 
Ortynsky and presented to him the protest to be sent to the Apos- 
tolic Delegate, and through him to Rome. With pleasure I will 
fulfill your request, but I am aware, that some priests would be 
doubtful, that I sent it. I recommend that the Committee deliver 
the protest to the Apostolic Delegate. The Apostolic Delegate ga- 
ve an audience to the committee, listened to their greviences and 
petition concerning the Bulla. The Apostolic Delegate replied : 
your bishop is prudent, the only trouble that I can see, that 
there is no understanding among the clergy. First you objected , 
that the Apostolic Visitator is subjected to a foreign authority 
and you are requesting an independent bishop. Rome accepted your 
petition and appointed a bishop for you, subjected to Rome ONLY, 
and still there is no harmony-understanding among you. That is 
the trouble. You get together unite and all will be well. 

I as an Apostolic Delegate will do everything possible for 
your good wishes. The above mentioned testify to us that the A- 
postolic Delegate is inclined to help us by giving us a letter 
of approval. 



No. 10932c. 

Received this day, the 20th of January 1908 from a committee 
of the Greek Catholic Ruthenian (Rusin) priests composed of Rev.s 
Valentine Gorzo, Joseph Hanulya and Nicholas Stefanovic a peti- 
tion to be sent to the Holy Father. 

D. Falconi 
Apostolic Delegate 

With a firm belief we believe, that our Lord and God will de- 
ter all the inconveniences , that the Holy Father will hear our 
complaints, also that the Apostolic will turn his attention to 
defend the rights of our Church and Bishop Soter S. Ortynsky. 
With esteem we remain 

Fr. Valentine Gorzo 

Fr. Joseph Hanulya 

Fr. Nicholas Stefanovic 


The undersigned Greek Rite Catholic Rusin missionaries in the 
United States of America are placing our mournful and sorrowful - 
protest at the feet of Your Holiness : 

A protest against the "EA SEMPER" Bulla given June 14,1907 

THe following are our reasons : 

1. The "EA SEMPER" Bulla does not stop our misery, but en- 
larges it and does not serve the purpose, for which it was intend- 

2. The "EA SEMPER" Bulla restricts and what is more, it is 
contrary to the Greek Rite privileges received and practiced for 
the past 35 years in the United States of America » continually. 

This Bulla contradicts itself. 

3. The Bulla does not accept us Greek Rite Catholics sons 
of the Universal Catholic Church, to which we have all the rights, 

4. The Bulla is giving an opportunity to 500,000 Greek Ri- 
te Catholic faithful Rusins to go to schism, therefore it is a 
sinful instrument in the hands of the Holy Mother Church, to des- 
troy so many of its children. 

5. The Bulla, humiliates our bishop and with him our whole 
Church, with this it is teaching our people, that our bishops au- 
thority is not equal with the Latin rite bishops authority, this 
is very harmful to the Catholic Church. 

6. The* Bulla is scandalizing the whole East, which gives a 
thought, that the Roman Catholic Church is not a Mother of all - 
the Church gives privileges and soon dispises them, this is not 
the spirit of Christ. 

The first point of view of ours is, that the Bulla does . not 
stop our misery, hardship, but increases it, neither is it serving 
its purpose. 

There are more than 200.000 Greek Rite Rusin faithful from Au- 
stro-Hungary who were driven by misery and ill date, left their 


homeland and settled in the United States of America. 

They gave up the misery for their daily bread. Who cannot un- 
derstand their sorrowful plight. They did not speak the English 
language for 5-6 years did not confess their sins, did not hear 
the Word of God. During this time no Catholic priest deemed it a 
necessary obligation to lighten the peoples spiritual needs and 
looked with a cold spirit and liberal feelings at their sorrowful 
plight, as if the Gospel would teach them that. 

The people turned to their Old-country bishops ..pleading with 
them to send the priests. They sent but a few, not much help. Ap- 
proved by our Church authorities valid priests with documents ca- 
me to the United States of America. The local bishops considered 
them heretics and did not accept them. What a sorrow. priests with 
education, speaking 6-8 languages were repelled by those whos 
theological knowledge was limited, speaking but one language. We 
who want to defend the Catholic Church our faith and nurish it 
Humble and obedient faithful, were denounced, by those who claim 
to be the best Catholics. 


Our first priest in the United States of America was excommu- 
nicated, because he was married. This excommunication was publish- 
ed by all the Latin rite bishops in the United States of America. 
Is this a proof of knowledge of the Church Law ? The Kaffs ( in Af- 
rica) know that in the Eastern Rite Church the clergy may be marri- 
ed or celibates, but in the United States of America, the bishops 
do not know that. They excommunicated a priest as a heretic. How 
are we to judge an excommunication and knowledge of the Church law. 
Finally they obtained permission from the Roman Curia, that these 
heretics are married clergy be recalled to Europe and our bishops 
were ordered to send celibate priests to the United States ,as if 
the celibate would be recognized as a brother priest and a Cathol- 
icEven the celibate priests were not recognized as Catholics. The 
bishops would not give them jurisdiction and if some gave them ju- 
risdiction, it was given to them for only a week. At that time - 
there were no Greek Rite Catholic churches in the United States , 
and the Latin rite bishops, clergy would not permit them to cele- 
brate the Divine Liturgy on Latin rite altars. They were forbid- 
den to administer the Sacraments, nor to bury the dead in a Cath- 
olic cemetary. If some of our priests in dispare were showing 
their documents from the Old-country bishops, they replied: maybe 
your bishop himself is not a Catholic. This we consider a shame — 
ful rude accusation of ignorance . 

In 1894 at a dedication of a Latin rite church an invited 
Greek Rite Catholic priest was in procession with the Latin rite 
clergy, vested in an Epitrachil according his rite. At* the church 
doors the bishop, stopping to be welcomed, spoke:" I will not 
bless this church unless the heretic leaves this place". Is this 
CATHOLICITY ? Our humble and good priest not to cause a scandal 
left with a bitter heart. The moral of this is that we cannot be 
equal among such Catholics. Such reasons compell us to build our 
churches. Within a short time, we have built our churches in which 
churches we can administer the Sacraments according our Greek Rite. 

When the Latin rite bishops saw the beautiful churches built 


by us, they began to be friendly and pleasant seeing the heretics. 
Give your church to me was a daily conversation and demand, other- 
wise I will not give you jurisdiction. But the priests who were 
put to shame by bishops , thrown out of churches as intruders _, beg- 
gars , would not transfer their hard earned churches, not to be 
thrown out of them, with the people. 

A new history began.- In the past the married priests were ex- 
communicated and celibate priests were demanded. Now the celibate 
priests were without jurisdiction and the married priests were in 
good standing. Why ? Because the married priests wanted peace 
and were ready to give over their churches to the Latin rite Bish- 
ops. Its miraculous, the excommunicated priests at once became the 
best Catholics. Whet is more, one Latin rite bishop even ordained 
a married man (Michael Hoban Bishop of Scranton,Pa.) to the 
priesthood in the United States of America. 

Our humble request did not persist very long, to have our own 
churches of which we have 60 on our name. Married clergy arrived 
from Europe, they were welcomed by the Latin rite bishops, but , 
these priests refused to sign over their churches. Now, what shall 
we do, said the Latin rite bishops ? Nothing is left, ONLY, to 
give a bishop to the Rusins in the United States, but, only such a 
person who will be an instrument in our hands and through him we 
will be able to take over church property. Then we can drive out 
the married clergy of their parishes . Because the married clergy 
are not practical anough to gain their goal. O how great is the 
grief for the Catholic Faith and love for these Rusin people, who 
at present have their own churches and property. Anybody would ta- 
ke note of the above, that they are not concerned about faith re- 
ligion of the Rusins, their religious life, their concern is only 
the earthly posessions. Such a method and acting concerning us 
and our people, is in just, pitiful and .unworthy to a Christian na- 
me. Still the Apostolic See approved the decrees , decision of the 
Congregation of Faith of October 1,1890, July 10,1891, April 12, 
1894, Mayl,1896, August 6, 1899, September 1, 1899 and May 10, - 
1907. Such resolutions robbed our bishop of respect, church, rite 
and clergy of their peaceful life in the United States of America 
Whereas we are not fighting against God nor the Catholic Church, 
we are only in combat against the unhuman un justice, which we are 
receiving from the Latin ritebishops of the United States. 

We are truly martyrs in these matters. We love God, we wish 
to serve Him, far away from our Fatherland, where we wish to. find 
a new home. That is what we Greek Rite Catholic Rusins want to be 
throughout the world. We do not believe, nor think the thoughts - 
that the Catholic Church wishes to be our enemy our persecutor. 
But, it is a sorrowful state and fate, which practically forces 
usto think in such a way, because the "EA SEMPER" Bulla of June 
14, 1907. did not bring relief to us in our struggle, instead it 
increased our unfortunate circumstances. To the present day we 
had as our enemy one or another bishop, in whose territory we 
were laboring, but at present, they are all our enemies .Accord — 
ing the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, a priest can have a parish only if he 
is a celibate. Until the present day married clergy had parishes 
but from now on, NO. Until now one bishop accepted us, and at 
present three bishops do that- i.e. one releaves us of our duty 
the other one sends us : away and the third one accepts us, and fi- 
nally they will discharge and banish us . Up to date our Sacra-' 


merits were valid, but from now on, not all. The EA SEMPER"Bul- 
la forbids us to Confirm validly. 

Until the present day we could have gotten priests or seminar- 
ians from Europe, to help us in our work. From now on our seminar- 
ians to be ordained are to be educated in Latin rite seminaries , 
because we do not have our own. What does all this mean ?Let the 
people be without a priest, Sacraments. Up to the present day we 
could of gathered all the scattered Greek Rite Catholic faithful , 
and administer to them. At present we cannot open a missionchurch 
that is responsiblity of those who do not care , nor have love 
for our people, i.e. the Latin rite bishops of the United States. 

Up to the present, the married clergy were accepted and marri- 
ed seminarians ordained in the United States. At present the marr- 
ied clergy have no place, only celibates. Let the souls get lost - 
or go to Schism, instead of letting the married clergy take care 
of their spiritual needs and keep them in the Catholic Faith. 

What kind of a reasonable thought brought out this Bulla? The 
reason must have been to keep the Rusin clergy in a miserable sta- 
te and let the people suffer ? Was not the "EA SEMPER" Bulla giv- 
en to favor the Latin rite bishops of the United States.. In the 
whole world the Greek Rite Catholic clergy could live in under- 
standing with the Latin rite clergy, only in the United States of 
America this is impossible. The Latin rite bishops and clergy do 
not want anything from us only our posessions. Why do they not 
let us live in peace, and worry about their own troubles, of which 
they have plenty. 

Therefore if the Apostolic See's thoughts are directed direct- 
ed towards some suffering subjects in the world, then it must be 
considered with the good of these subjects, and the "EA SEMPER " 
Bulla is doing the worst which is not sensible. 

February 20, 1908. p. 4. 

II. The second point of view is that this Bulla restricted - 
us and is contrary to our Greek Rite Catholic Rite and PRIVILEGES , 
which rite obtained for itself through a continous 35 years prac- 
tice in the United States of America, the Bulla is forbidding full 
rights; From one side it defends the rite and from the others side 
is destroying it. 

If anyone reads the "EA SEMPER" Bulla March 4,1907 to our 
Greek Rite Bishop, he must be convinced, that the Apostolic See is 
attempting with a great patience to take over the Greek Rite Cath- 
olic Rusins. At the end of the Bulla, nominating a bishop for the 
United States of America, are the following words:" With our Apos- 
tolic care we are appointing you a bishop, also keeping in 

mind the present situation, we appoint you a Greek Rite Catholic - 

Bishop for the United States of America, to uphold, defend 

the RITE'S inviolability.". 

The "EA SEMPER" Bulla says clearly, that with the opinion we 
decided to appoint a bishop, who is vested with the necessary pow- 
er, to uphold and defend the Greek Rite in the missionary territory. 

Since the ancient times in the Greek Rite Catholic Church 
throughout the whole world the clergy administered the Sacrament 
of Confirmation, according the prescribed form, right after Bap- 
tism. Therefore by what reason is the "EA SEMPER" Bulla forbidding 


the Greek Rite clergy to Confirm. It says clearly in the 14th ar- 
tical, such Confirmation in the United States of America is inva- 
lid; but beyond the United States of America Confirmation is valid. 
This claims that the validity of the Sacrament depends on the 

For the past 35 years the Sacrament of Confirmation was admi- 
nistered in the United States of America a practice which gives us 
the right to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. The usage - 
of administering the Sacrament of Confirmation, by the Greek Rite 
Catholic priest is so deeply rooted in the hearts of our Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Rusins, that it is a must. 

All the RUSIN EUCHOLOGIONS , Typiks , Pastoral Letters prescribe 
it. If the practice is changed, history would have to be changed 
concerning Confirmation. Secondly, not one of the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Fathers would even dare to think that the priest cannot ad- 
minister the Sacrament of Confirmation to an infant after Baptism. 
No faithful of the Greek Rite would dare leave the church with- . 
out having the infant Confirmed. If the priest would be adamant - 
in not Confirming the child, they would go to the Orthodox priest, 
who has the right to Confirm and from whom no one is taking away 
this right. The faithfuls inner conviction, feeling, is that the 
Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation are unseparable in the Greek 
Rite. If the priest would dare to separate the two Sacraments, - 
the people would name him a destroyer of the rite and would ask 
him to leave the parish. Not wishing to have an ignorant priest , 
who does not know his rite in their parish. 

If the clergy would administer only the Sacrament of Baptism 
leaving out Confirmation, all the people would rather go to 
schism leaving the priest and bishop without a flock. All our Ru- 
sin people are aware that in the Latin rite the bishop administers 
the Sacrament of Confirmation, but they also know that in the 
Greek rite every priest is an extra ordinary administrator of Con- 
firmation by privilege and continous usage 

If some one would dare to separate this immemorable usage, 
usage of Baptism and Confirmation, our opinion is that such rea- 
soning would conflict with the Greek Rite Ritual. The "EA SEMPER" 
Bulla is contrary to the Eastern rite usage. In the United States 
of America this usage has been practiced for the past 35 years con- 
tinually; this usage gives us the right to oppose the Bulla. Every 
priest administering the Sacrament of Confirmation according 
Greek Rite's form and ceremony is acting contrary to the decrees 
of : POPE LEO X., Clement VII, Paul V., Urban VII., Benedict XIV, - 
etc. To refuse the administration of Confirmation to a Greek Rite 
priest according the ritual used by the Rusins, would also be con- 
trary to our privileges. 

It is necessary to protect and guard the form, in which it was 
developed as much as possible. This is a rational right of think- 
ing. The Holy See praiseworthly reveals its wish and request that 
the Greek Rite clergy and faithful in the United States of America 
STRICTLY keep the ritual. Rational reasoning of the "EA SEMPER" - 
Bulla set an introduction to destroy our Greek Rite in a short ti- 
me, by constricting and opposing it. 

The 22nd Article of the Bulla says: That the Rusin Greek Rite 
people who settled in the United States of America, are permitted 
to take up the Latin rite. 


The 27th Article: forbids the Latin rite woman, to follow the 
husband in his rite, but, the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin woman may 
follow the Latin rite husband in his rite. 

Marriages of a Latin rite man and woman, can be celebrated 
ONLY in the Latin rite, by a Latin rite priest. A Greek rite Catho- 
lic Rusin man and a Latin rite woman's marriage could be performed 
by a Greek rite Catholic or Latin rite pastor. Art. 32. 

Article 34 in the United States of America children born of a 
Latin rite father and a Greek Rite Catholic Rusin mother are to be 
Baptized in the Latin rite, the child is to follow the fathers ri- 
te, if the father is of the Latin rite. If the father is of the 
Greek Rite and the mother of the Latin Rite, it is permitted to 
baptize the child in the Latin Rite. (All this is done for the sa- 
ke of Christ and salvation of souls. No doubt this is the Apostol- 
ic Sees selicitude which they to accept with affection and obedi- 
ence.) . 

Who cannot see in the decision of the Apostolic See, evil in 
the composition of the "Ea SEMPER" Bulla composed by man, a will 
to destroy our Greek Rite and the annilihation of the living faith- 
ful. It is clearly expressed. What a sorrow and bitterness over 
whelms our hearts , when we read what the Holy See requests , that 
we MUST STRICTLY DEFEND THE GREEK RITE and at the same time opres- 
sess, belittles, tears it apart and considers it to be the lowest. 

Who is not aware of these deeds ? The strict protection of the 
Greek Rite by the Holy See giving the Greek Rite people and bishop 
the"EA SEMPER" Bulla. 

Decision in Articles 22,32,34, conflicts with itself. This Bulla 
must be revoked or totally changed. 

Article 3 . This Bulla does not consider us Greek Rite Cathol- 
ics of the United States of America, as children of the Universal 
Catholic Church, to which we have all the rights to request and 
not forced to accept the unjustice . 

According the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, the beauty of 
the Catholic Church is, that it embraces all nationals with love 
and good will. The beauty of the Catholic Church is revealed in 
its different rites and one in Faith 

The Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles, gave them power 
to speak in different languages, as a sign, that different natio- 
nals are invited into the Catholic Church. David the prophet says: 
"All tongues glorify God, glorifying him all people". Therefore - 
all the languages are blessed by the Holy Spirit for the greater '. 
glory of God. Different languages are the foundation of different 
nationals, who with their morals, customs form different rites. 

The Greek Rite Catholic Church in its religious teaching is 
united with the Universal Catholic Church, in which the Old Slova- 
nic language is used. 

The Catholic Church accepted them as her children and strengh- 
tened them in their rite and privileges. We do not think that it 
is a sin, that Almighty God created the Slovanic race, thanks to 
Christ our Lord, Who called us to Himself, giving uspower to glo- 
rify God in our SLOVANIC language. If the Catholic Church accept- 
ed us according the will of Christ in its totality, then we have 
the right to live. God created the SLOVANIC people, who have a 
special rite, which is recognized by the Church, we love our lan- 
guage and rite. Therefore no one has the right to deprive us of 


what is dear to our hearts and souls, 

Whereever we would be, we are free to glorify God in our Slo- 
vanic language and be called the children of the Holy Mother Ca- 
tholic Church, with our customs of the Greek Rite. This clearly - 
emphesized by the word CATHOLIC, UNIVERSAL CHURCH, which means 
that throughout the world we are Catholics. 

The "EA SEMPER" Bulla -clearly demonstrates to the whole world 
that this, the word CATHOLIC, does not belong to us. In the whole 
world all have a place, only the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins do 
not. We insist and believe that in all places of the world, we ha- 
ve a place especially when we are not only a few, but, over five 
hundred thousand Greek Rite Catholic Rusin people live, having the- 
ir, clergy and bishops. We would like to know, by what reason the 
name Catholic is denied of us and by which other language can we 
use that name inside our boundries. Here too, it can be seen that 
the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins are put to a certain place, from 
where they cannot leave without loosing their privileges and the 
name Catholic. Whereas the other rites of the Catholic Church may 
live without restraint. 

It seems that the Holy See to favor the Latin rite with the 
"EA SEMPER" Bulla judged and resolved, that the Greek Rite Catho- 
lic Rusins are not permitted to live in the United states, ONLY 
if they are deprived of their rights, rite and privileges. Our o- 
pinian is that the 500,000 Greek Rite Catholic Rusin people de- 
mand the right to live in the United States of America, with its 
rite and privileges. We are here in the United States for the past 
35 years with the same rite and will not permit anyone to take a- 
way from us the right to praise God under the name Greek Rite Ca- 

The "EA SEMPER Bulla is contradicting all the above therefore 
the name "KATHOLIKOS" for us Greek Rite Catholics is useless ,and 
we ought not to use it. We, the Greek Rite Catholic clergy and - 
faithful, firmly hold on to the right of name "KATHOLIKOS " .We will 
not give up the name of our own will, nor loose it. We are request- 
ingand answer from the Holy See, as to what kind of a name will - 
Rome give us Greek Rite Catholics in the Church. We belong to the 
same group as those brothers and sisters of our, in Austria Hunga- 

Article 4. The "EA SEMPER" Bulla gives an opportunity to five 
hundred thousand Greek Rite Catholic Rusin faithful to go to 
schism. In such a sinful manner the Bulla serves the Church; to de- 
stroy so many of her children. 

At the time of the arrival of a bishop to the United States - 
of America for the Greek Rite Catholics, all the clergy were so 
touched, that they did not know how to thank God and the Holy See 
for for the good will towards them by appointing a bishop. 

At the time it seemed as if all the troubles, misunderstandings 
breaks among the clergy and people, also the Latin rite bishops - 
came to beaks with the appointment of the bishop. 

The Schismatics were trembling from fear, that the Schism will 
falter. They informed the Russia Synod about their plight plead- 
ing for financial help to support their missionaries and to re- 
tain the stolen Catholics. All this lasted for a short time. When 
the "EA SEMPER" Bulla was published, at that moment every thinq 
changed. The people read in the newspapers about the humiliations 


threa triing of the priests, that, if they do not accept the Bul- 
la, they will be releaved of their pastoral duty. Yes, we saw the 
humiliation, which we hardly could believe, given ud by the Holy 
See our loving Mother in such a Bulla. 

The Schismatics began to print in their newspapers the" . EA 
SEMPER" Bulla explaining it from every side according to their 
method, and spreading the newspapers among the Greek Rite Catho- 
lics . Even the Catholic newspapers were publicizing the sorrowful 
plight of the Greek Rite Catholics, adding their : remarks the 
threatning danger of the Bulla. The newspapers were sympatizing 
with us Greek Rite Catholics, expressing their regret against the 

The consequence was, that the enthusiastic joy of the people 
for their bishop, changed. They began to go to Schism, according 
to the signs it seemed possible that all the people will embrace 
Schism. No power, no persuasion, no bishop is able to deter them 
from the unfairness, unjustification of the "EA SEMPER" Bulla and 
the ' disgrace of our Greek Rite, clergy and the Rusin people. 

From that moment we stopped beleiving that the Catholic Church 
is the loving Mother of all her children and that the spirit of 
Christ is reigning over it, in our despair. The Church gave con- 
venience to human affection, to some of her children and became 
the step-mother to some of her children. We are still praying to 
God sayingY Christ left 99 sheep and went looking for the lost - 

Our Christian soul is so dear to God, that according to the 
teaching of Christ, for one souls salvation, he took upon Himself 
death upon the cross. If the Catholic Mother Church made the spi- 
rit of Christ her own, then it cannot do this, and not for one 
soul, but for 500,000. This is the case in concern. The "EA SEM- 
PER" Bulla gives an opportunity for so many souls to turn to 
Schism, who are aware, that the Holy Mother Church despise the v- 
poor, humiliate them unjustly, deter them as prodigal children as 
if there be no place for them in the Catholic Church of Christ 
The Schismatics in turn are streching their arms to embrace them 
promissing them to keep all their customs, rights, laws and privi- 
leges, which they had when a Union was made with the Catholic 
Church of Rome. Furthermore, they will give them financial help 
to churches, cemeteries, schools and support the clergy. They are 
showing a motherly love towards us as a natural mother would do 

We Greek Rite Catholic Rusins up to the present day had no re- 
quest or demand from our Mother Church. On the contrary, we with - 
the other Catholics gave our share in charity to her, and even 
Supported the different institutions of hers in the United States. 
In return we received humiliation and persecution from her. 

Our people well understand the situation, so do we the clergy. 
We raise our voices before God exclaiming, that this Bulla " EA 
SEMPER" is a horrible instrument to destroy 500,000 Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Rusin children, who realized the injustice done to them, 
by the Church. These Greek Rite Catholic Rusins, would rather /go 
to Schism than to accept the "EA SEMPER" Bulla. 

Article 5. This Bulla humiliates our bishop and does not even 
consider him to be a bishop and with him humiliates our Church 
With this act our people are being taught, not to respect a bishop 
his dignity, nor to respect the Church, which is very harmful and 


and clear. According the "EA SEMPER" Bulla our bishop has no autho- 
rity. He is a helpless instrument in the Latin rite bishops juris- 
diction, which office the lowest ranking priest can exercise. There- 
fore such a bishop has no respect, honor from the people. This is 
a monstrasity. We are not used to such bishops, i.e., bishops who 
have no authority or jurisdiction, as whom Rome sent to us to de- 
stroy our rite and Church. - 

We are suprised, that the Holy See could permit to our Bishop, 
who is subjected directly to the Holy See, not to have jurisdic - 
tion. Some priests in the United States have more jurisdiction than 
he. We wish it to be known that we the clergy and faithful Greek - 
Rite Catholics, do not want to be subjects of the Latin rite Bish- 
op, only to our own. 

The "EA SEMPER" Bulla humiliated our bishop and our faithful 
simply to satisfy the requests of the Latin Rite Bishops of the U- 
nited States of America. The council of the "EA SEMPER" Bulla is 
so injuring, unhealthy to the thousand years set rights of theirs. 

Art. 6. This article scandalized the whole East, giving the 
thought, that the Holy See is not the Mother of all united Church- 
es, only to the chosen ones, who are rich and she dispises the 
poor, Such an act is not according the spirit of Christ. 

The Easterners are growing in the United States of America , 
even if they will not be in the majority, but they will be equal 
with the Westerners . There is hope to convert the Dissident Eas- 
terners and heretics to the Catholic Church, that would enlarge - 
the Eastern Church. In the East where the Dissidents are in majo- 
rity, there too is hope for conversion. But the "EA SEMPER" Bulla 
scandalized the Easterners throughout the whole world. They are 
complaining that the Roman Church is against the Eastern Church - 
as against an enemy. The situation of the Greek Rite Catholic 
Church in the United States of America is a proof of it. This is 
a proof that the Apostolic See is not truthful in her politics 
concerning the Eastern Churches customs, privileges. The poor na- 
tions even if they are loyal, but poor, they are dispised by Rome. 

The Greek Rite Catholic Rusin people are poor people , but with 
the help of God they are hopeing that soon they will be recognized. 
What brought this fate to the Rusins, the "EA SEMPER" Bulla. 

We the undersigned clergy recommend the following to solve 
the problems . 

a) Give our Bishop full jurisdiction in the United States of 
America and if that is impossible then establish a Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Eparchy for them in Philadelphia, Pa., to which Eparchy all 
the Greek Rite Catholics would belong. 

b) Abrogate the following Articles: 3,5,11,13,14,16,17,22, 
23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 36- 

c) Change also the following Articles: 1,2. 

1. The appointment of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop, be not 
reserved to the Holy Apostolic See, but to the clergy. The select- 
ed one is to be at least five years in the United States of America. 

2. The Greek Rite Catholic Rusin Bishop be subjected direct- 
ly to the Holy See and the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D.C. , 
having full episcopal jurisdiction. 

3. Omit in the 10th Article the following: that only celi- 
bate clergy may receive Holy Orders in the United States. 

4. Article 4. The churches and their property is to be deed- 


ed in trust of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop. 

5. Article 12. Omit celibate or widower. 

6. Article 20. The stole fees to be set by the Greek Rite - 
Catholic Bishop. 

7. Article 25 up to the words "They know", omit. 

8. Article 25 ,but both remain by their rite untill 


9. Article 3 the infant boys follow the fathers rite 

and the girls the mothers rite in the United States of America. 

10. Article 32. Marriage to be celebrated by the waman's pas 

11. Article 35. ... the boys follow the fathers and the girls 
the mothers religion and vice versa. 

The Holy See approve a bishop for the Uhro-Rusins, who will - 
not make intrigues among the clergy, people and the Disidents. 

The Apostolic See is to notify the Apostolic Delegate in Wash- 
ington, D.C., that the "EA SEMPER" Bulla is invalid until newer 
instructions. This is requested on account of the great danger - 
that the people will go to Schism rather than to accept the " EA 
SEMPER" Bulla. We the clergy beside the mentioned reasons concern- 
ing the "EA SEMPER" Bulla; we may add, that if the people will go 
to Schism, then it will be Rome's obligation to support the clergy. 

If some time our reasoning and rights be set aside, we want - 
the right to keep the name "CATHOLIC" . 

Presenting our protest to Your Holiness, with a firm belief - 
that our petition will be NOT refused, but considered in good faith 
and feeling, we place our gasping wounds at the feet of Your Holi;- 

Your Holinesses obedient sons : 
Emil Mihaly, Pleasant City,0. Anthony Mhley, Lindsey,Pa. 
Michael Biszaha, Donora,Pa. Emil Seregelyi, Charleroi , Pa . 
Alexius Medvecky, Youngstown,0. Julius Pasztelyi, Monessen,Pa 
Bart. Tutkovics, Butler, Pa Nicholas Ivanchuk, Ambridge,Pa * 
Joseph Hanulya, Allegheny , Pa . Peter Lucenko, McKees Rocks, Pa * 

* Nicholas Ivancuk,McKeesport,Pa Nicholas Stefanovic, Pittsburgh, Pa * 
Roman Volinec, South Fork, Pa. Michael Balogh, Pittsburgh, Pa 

* Nicholas Pidhorecky ,FickvillePa. Julius Orosz, Homestead, Pa. 
Alexius Holozsnyay, Homestead, Pa John Szabo, Plymouth, Pa. 

Ivan Hrabar, Dickson City, Pa. Myron Danilovic, Ford City, Pa. * 
John Szabo , Berwick ,Pa. Basil Hrivnak, Syracuse, N.Y. * 

* T. Dwulit, Granville, N.Y. Alexius Pelensky, Newark, N.J. * 

* Basil Hrivnak, Airbridge, Pa Elias Gojdics, Bridgeport, Conn. 
Ireneua Janiczky, Passaic, N.J. Vlad. Voljansky, Manchester,N.H. * 
Valentine Gorzo, Bridgeport, Conn Peter Poniatisin, Ramey,Pa. * 

* Joseph Caplinsky, New York, N.Y. Eugene Homicsko , Passaic. N.J. 
Peter Keselyak, Brooklyn, N.Y. Victor Mirossay, Yonkers,N.Y. 
Gabriel Csopey,PerthAmboy,N.J. Theodore Chorny, Hawk Run, Pa. * 
Thomas Szabo, Bayonne,N.J. Alexius Ulicky, N.Y. N.Y. * 

* Demetrius Dobrotvor,Yonkers,N.Y Vlad. Stech, Deslonge, Mo. * 

* Nicholas Strutinsky, Chicago, 111. Alexius Humecky, Jersey City, N. J.* 
Andrew Kaminsky, Elizabeth, N.J. Ivan Fekula, Troy, N.Y. * 

* John Dorozinsky, Buffalo, N.Y Roman Zalitac, New Br i tain, Conn. * 

* Stephen Makar, Ansonia, Conn. Nicholas Molcsanyi,Freeland,Pa 
Emil Artimovics, St. Clair, Pa. Emil Kubek, Mahanoy City, Pa. 

* Ivan Konstankevic,Shamoken,Pa Paul Sembratovic, Mt.Carmel,Pa * 


Ivan Velehorsky,Minersville,Pa 
Nicholas Martyak, Hazleton,Pa 
Orestes Zloczky, Lansford, Pa 
Alexius Dudinsky, Toronto, 0. 
Eugene Petrasovics,Braddock,Pa. 
Stephen Gulovics,Bradenville,Pa 
Basil Volosin, Windber,Pa.~ 
Alexius Vajda, Marble Head,0. 
John Korotnoky, Phila. Pa. 
Effiil Burik, Cleveland, 0. 
Emil Bartos, Phila. Pa. 
Michael Mitro, Old Forge, Pa. 

Teofan Obuskevic, 01yphant,Pa.* 
Stephen Polyansky, Allentown,Pa 
Nestor Voljansky, Buffalo, N.Y . * 
Paul Staurovsky, Tr auger, Pa. 
Nicholas Szabados, Johnstown, Pa. 
John Lukacs, Cleveland, C. 
George Cmajlo, Carnegy,Pa. * 
Victor Kovalicky, Barnesboro,Pa 
Vlad. Petrovsky , N.Y. N.Y. * 
Michael Lisak, 01yphant,Pa * 
Theodore Ladomersky,Jessup,Pa 

Four did not sign. 

Galicians : 

Uhro-Rusins : 



The clergy meeting was held in Pittsburgh, Pa. , May 18,1910 to 
organize a Mission Circle. 

The following were presenttFr.s Valentine Gorzo, Ireneus Ma- 
tyaczko, Sylvester Lupis, Nestor Volensky, Joseph Hanulya, Victor 
Kovaliczky and Orestes Csornyak. 

Fr. Valantine Gorzo in his introduction, described the pity- 
ful situation of our Church, where the order is terrible and un- 
fortunate dissention is growing. This must stop in the following 
manner: that all the clergy, who have in their hearts the future 
of the Church and the Rusin People in the Umited States. We must 
get down to work and enlighten the forgotten Rusin people of Hun- 
gary who are disturbed. I also wish to announce to you, that at - 
my request the following Fr.s Eugene Petrasovics, Emil Mihaly ,- 
Elias Gojdics, Michael Balogh, Valentine Balogh, Michael Biszaha, 
John Lukacs , Alexius Novak and Nicholas Duda united with us and 
approve the resolutions of the meeting. 

Hopeing that this action will not be without success, therefor 
it is necessary to appoint a Chairman and a Secretary. 

Fr. Valentine Gorzo elected as Chairman, Fr. Orestes Csornyak 
recording secretary and Ireneus Matyaczko treasurer. 

The consultation began, the result was that the "Mission)'Cirle 
meet monthly, talk over the church and national matters to have - 

The following program will be : 

1. Publicly announce loyalty to the bishop. 

2. Keep the faithful in their ancestors religion,i the 
Greek Rite Catholic religion and in love of their rite. 

3. Continually publicize the indignation about the issue of 
the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, work with all your strenght, that the men- 
tioned Bulla, which is desasterous and unmercifully trampling 
down our rite and discipline of the East, not to be brought to li- 
fe . 

4. Continually enlighten the faithful, lead them in truth, 
what are they to do concerning the Church and national affairs 
and how to progress . 

Include, to decide the name of our heritage. We are to be nam- 
ed "RUSINS". 

The name of the newspaper to be " R U S I N ". 
Given at Pittsburgh, Pa. , May 18,1910. 

Fr. Orestes Csornyak, Secretary 


"RUSIN" May 5, 1910. 

The Bishop of Munkacs Eparchy, No 3568, May 31,1910 gave out - 
an order that Fr . Cornelius Laurisin of Trenton , N . J ., to return at 
once to the Old-country. Bishop Julius Firczak gave the order, he 
was ordered to do so by the Congregation of Propaganda of Faith - 
May 25,1910. No. 28,024. 

It is a very important matter. We must stop and think. this 
matter over. Why and what is the reason for giving this strict - 
order ? 



"Rusin" July 21, 19 10 .p. 3. 

The"EA SEMPER" is truly the "EA SEMPER": ALWAYS TOE SAME" . 

Do not think that the "EA SEMPER" Bulla is something new. No. 
It is an old Bulla, only it is written more carefully. 

The first Bulla appeared, when the first Greek Rite Catholic 
priest Fr. John Voljansky was excommunicated, because he was mar- 
ried. He was recalled by the Metropolitan of Lvov, who replaced 
him with Fr. Constantine Andruchovic a celibate (Kalendar A.R.V. , 
1906. p. 150.) 

The second Bulla was given October 1, 1890. 

The Third Bulla was given April 12, 1894. 

The Fourth Bulla was given October 1,1904 
the Fifth Bulla was given June 14,1907, the "EA SEMPER". 

The contents of these Bullas are the same, I.E., that a mar- 
ried priest has no place in the United States of America; Secondly 
that the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin may follow the Latin rite. All 
are under the jurisdiction of the Latin rite bishops, if they deem 
it beneficial, they may appoint a Rusin or Latin as a Vicar. 

The goal of this Bulla was to bring uniformity, i.e., take 
over the Greek Rite Catholics into the Latin rite. 

The same is happening at present; One returns to the Oldcoun- 
try, the other one is recalled and the third one goes to Schism. 

In general the Bullas were given. The first one was not ful= 
filled, therefore it was necessary to have the second, third 
fourth and fifth, because not one of them was accepted, therefore 
they did not last. 

In general the Bullas did not last, because the clergy and . 
the faithful opposed them with one spirit. That some parts of the 
Bulla were carried out, the reason was our weakness. 

When the Lvov Metropolitan received an order to recall Fr. J. 
Voljansky from the United States of America, only because he was 
a married man, this was the time to destroy the Irish bishops in- 
trigues, and reply to the Congregation of Faith. That they stand 
fast by their married clergy, whom they will not recall, nor re= 
place them. 

When the Presov bishop recalled Fr. Alexius Toth, because he 
was protecting his Church and spoke harshly with the St. Paul Latin 
rite bishop, was it not his obligation to defend his priest and - 
stand by him resolutely, firmly ? No. 

Both of them were obedient and fulfilled the orders. One of 
recalled returned home, the other on account of moral obligation 
at home could not return, instead went into Schism. 

What happehd with the "EA SEMPER" Bulla ? The same as it hap- 
pened with the preceeding Bullas. 

They were not promulgated nor upheld. If some upheld the "EA 
SEMPER" Bulla favoring the Irish bishops, that does not mean that 
the "EA SEMPER" Bulla was upheld. The reason for this was our mis- 
understanding and our weakness. 

If the Old-country bishops would of bravely protested against 
the Bullas, if in the UNited States the clergy and faithful would 
protested in unity , then we would not fear the Bullas . 

What do we notice at present ? We are aware that all the Gali- 
cian bishops protested, but, we did not hear that the Uhro-Rusin 
bishops fulfilled their obligation 


Was it not their obligation, their faithful, their Church was 
in concern. Didnt they have the sane obligation as the Galician - 
bishops ? 

What kind of harmony unity do we have in the United States ? 

We are aware that only 15 priests did not sign the protest a- 
gainst the "EA SEMPER" Bulla. 


A.R.V. August 31,1911 

Your Holiness: 

We the undersigned Catholic priests of the Greek Rite natives 
of Hungary and Austria, Galicia, presently doing missionary work 
in the United States of America, proclaim ourselves devoted and 
obedient children of the Holy See. 

The very sad condition which exist within the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church since the arrival of Bishop Soter Ortynsky to the 
United States of America. The hatred and division among our Greek 
Rite Catholic Rusin people, and the immenent ruin of our Church 
compell us, the undersigned Catholic clergy of the Greek Rite, to 
present ourselves and our humble petition to Your Holiness expres- 
sing our great sorrow. 

Holy Father: It is over 30 years since the Greek Rite Catholic 
parish was organized in the United States . Great efforts had to 
be made in order to organize our people. Great sacrifices were ne- 
cessary, just to preserve our people in the Catholic faith and 
from the moral ruin. The missionaries, who came here from Hungary 
and Austria, Galicia, have sacrificed their lives and submitted 
themselves to great privations. They have labored with great suc- 
cess, that at present time we have over 200 churches , many schools, 
rectories and cemetar^.ies , all acquired with the contribution of 
our faithful. Should all this go to wast ? 

We hoped that with the arrival of Bishop Soter Ortynsky the ef- 
forts of the clergy would have more success and that the bishop - 
would become a loving Father to us , and our leader in the struggle 
against the enemies of the Catholic Church. But, to our regret e- 
verything has gone contrary to our expectations. 

At the beginning only the Greek Rite Catholic clergy , natives 
of Hungary had reason to complain against Bishop Soter Ortynsky, - 
while the natives of Galicia had taken a waiting stand. But, by now 
we are certain that the activity of Bishop Soter Ortynsky' is ruin- 
ing our Church and our people. Therefore ,now all the Greek Rite 
Catholics, natives of both Hungary and Galicia, are united in or- 
der to take this common action . 

To prove , that our accusations are not unfounded and that eve- 
rything said here is only the truth, we confirm it with our oath 
taken before a Catholic priest, who was explicitly explicitly de- 
legated for this purpose by Michael J. Hoban, Bishop of Scranton,Pa 

The following charges are made by various Greek Rite Catholic 
clergy under oath, as it was stated above. Here we present to 
Your Holiness the charges : 

1. Bishop Soter Ortynsky openly disregards proper ecclesias- 
tical authority. In the presence of several persons, he had harsh- 


ly criticized Roman dignitaries and stated that Rome was indeed a 
Sodom and Goirorrha, the Supreme Pontiff being the only honost per- 
son in the entire city. 

2 . By his unbecoming conduct Bishop Soter Ortynsky umdermin- 
es the authority of the episcopal office, as well as the interests 
of religion, nationality and Catholicism. 

3. Bishop Soter Ortynsky instead of uniting the minds of - 
the people, is dividing them into political factions and accor- 
dingly forms certain factions of his flock. Everyone who belong to 
his political faction is "persona grata" and considered him as Ca- 
tholic, while his opponents are "Persona non grata" and named 

4. Bishop Soter Ortynsky uses his authority (jurisdiction) - 
received from Latin rite Ordinaries to deceive our people and the 
Catholic Church. Instigated by political factions, he divides va- 
rious parishes without having the approval of the local Ordinaries 
as e.g. in Edwardsville, Wilkes Barre, Scran ton, Hazleton, Perth Am- 
boy, Newark, Monessen, Johnstown, Latrobe, McAdoo, Cleveland ,- - 
Youngs town, Passaic, Minersville and Chicago. The people divided 
into fractions, are demoralized, fighting, involved in lawsuits . 
In some instances there were fist fights and the sheding of . 
blood, as happened in New Britain, Conn. Since anarchy prevails a- 
mong the people, the Church cannot fulfill her mission. 

5. Bishop Soter Ortynsky is using his authority to breakup 
even the committees, which are composed entirely of the Greek Ri- 
te Catholic faithful coming from Hungary. The clergy coming from 
Hungary are persecuted, unjustly denied jurisdiction and suspend- 
ed without any reason or recource. He publishes the names of tho- 
se priests who have received the jurisdiction from local Ordinari- 
es in his "DUSPASTYR" paper, accusing them of exercising their mi- 
nistry without jurisdiction, declaring them suspended and inde- 

6. By his imprudent actions he destroys Fraternal Societies 
This has a bad influence on the religious life of the people and 
causes a great loss to the Church. On account of the imprudent ac- 
tion of Bishop Soter Ortynsky more than 25,000 people have become 
Schismatic since his arrival. This statement was made by the Schis- 
matic Bishop Platon, and we can say, that it is a fact. A consi- 
derable number of the people in Philadelphia, Pa. , Mt.Carmel, Ber- 
wick, Passaic, Jersey City, Conemaugh, Mason town, Arcadia, Brooklyn 
St. Louis, Desloge, Carnegie, Westbury, VanSocket, Brookside, Chica- 
go, Minersville, Janette, Newark and Coaldale, passed to schism. Now 
how great a damage can be expected in the homes of the faithful , 
who have gone into schism and then return to their nativeland. 

7 . The American bishops are well acquainted with these de- 
plorable circumstances and they are doing all in their power to - 
prevent defections , trying to guard our Church from the threaten- 
ing ruin. What is more, there are many violations of Church law 
which certainly has a bad reflection on the body of the Church. 

8. To impress Rome by his constant activity and to make be- 
lieve that he has a great majority of the clergy on his side Bish- 
op Soter Ortynsky ordains and receives into the Church many per- 
sons without necessary education and what is still worst, men of 
bad reputation. 


Bishop Soter Ortynsky ordained a certain Delianis, member of 
the Latin rite, Lithuanian by nationality. He was ordained " sub 
conditione" at the Greek Rite Catholic Cathedral Church in Phila- 
delphia, Pa. This man after ordination celebrated the Liturgy ac- 
cording the Latin rite vested in Greek rite vestments. Later he 
was presented to Archbishop Glenon of St. Louis as a private sec- 
retary of Bishop Soter Ortynsky under the name of Victor Daucat. 
This was done by Bishop Soter Ortynsky. The very same Dalianis is 
known to the local bishops as a forger of public documents ,impost- 
er, unbelieving socialist, having been arrested several times for - 
posing as a Catholic priest , before his ordination. 

Bishop Soter Ortynsky accepted as a priest Fr. Valentine Balogh 
who left his native Eparchy of Munkacs without dimissoral Letters 
and consequently was removed from the list of the clergy of said 
Eparchy . 

Among the clergy Bishop Soter Ortynsky accepted a certain Ja- 
son Kovacs , who escaped from Hungary without the permission of 
his Superior. In the same manner he accepted Fr. Sylvester Lupis 
who came to America to collect funds for his monastery. ( Both 
O.S.B.M men.) . 

He accepted also Fr. Michael Korba, who arrived here without 
the permission of his Ordinary, the Bishop of Eperjes. 

9. The deeds to the Cathedral, residence, orphanage and semi- 
nary lots are under Bishop Soter Ortynsky' s name as a private per 
son and not under the title of the Greek Rite Catholic Diocese. 

10 . Bishop Soter Ortynsky has made collections and received 
various donations for the Cathedral and seminary as well as for o- 
ther Eparchial ptojects, but has failed to give -n account of the- 
se donations . 

11. Bishop Soter Ortynsky jeopardizing his dignity owning a 
religious store and a Savings Bank for the workers , especially 
forcing the young people to deposit their money in his bank . 

12. He charges $25.00 - 100.00 for matrimonial dispensations 
in majority of cases these dispensations are granted without any 
canonical reasons, therefore they are invalid. He grants permis- 
sion to priests to binate even on week days . 

13. Bishop Soter Ortynsky calls church committees, parish - 
and people whos property is not under his name, all kinds of na- 
mes as, devils, devil's church, and the people Schismatics and 
their priests Independents . 

14. Bishop Soter Ortynsky treats his clergy and people very 
harshly, publicly attacking them in newspapers and his sermons. He 
even attacks the Catholic bishops of both rites, uses a language 
which is unbecoming for a bishop, sending the people to the devil, 
hell etc. Such expressions used by him cause scandal to all con- 

15. Bishop Soter Ortynsky makes others responsible for his - 
own faillures and conveniently pretends to forget what he has said 

16. .Bishop Soter Ortynsky notified the publishers, i.e., the 
Editors of the Catholic Clergy Directory in the United States, Wilt 
zen & Co. to leave out the names of those Greek Rite Catholic 
priests who are not subjected to him. Only by vigorious interven- 
tion of the LatinRite Ordinaries the names of Greek Rite Catholic 
priests who received jurisdiction from said Ordinaries were print- 


Michael Jackovics 

Scran ton, Pa 
John Korotnoky 
Nicholas Csopey 
Wilkes Barre,Pa. 
Leo Lewicky 
Shenandoah , Pa 
Nichols Martyak 
Victor Suba 
Gabriel Martyak 
Lans f ord , Pa . 
Demetrius Chomiak 
Simpson, Pa. 
Basil Hrivnak 
Butler Pa. 
Paul Ruttkay 
Nicholas Szabados 
Johnstown, Pa 
Michael Balogh 
Monangahale , Pa . 
Arnold Suba 
Stephen Polyansky 
Alexander Kossey 
Donora Pa. 
Myron Danilovic 
Joseph Kovalcsik 
Homestead, Pa. 
Michael Andrejkovics 
McKees Rocks, Pa. 
Alexander Dzubay 
Nicholas Sztecovics 
New Salem, Pa. 
John Danilovics 
S.Sharon, Pa 

Alexius Medvecky 
Youngs town , Ohio 
Eugene Homicsko 
Stephen Gulovics 
Uniontown , Pa . 
Anthomy Mhley 
Lindsay , Pa 
Gregory Kulcicky 
Emil Burik 
Alexius Holozsnyay 
Homestead, Pa 1 
Emil Artimovics 
Cons tan tine Roskovics 
Brownswille ,Pa 
Myron Volkay 
Taylor ,Pa. 
Theodore Ladomersky 
Emil Kubek 
Mahanoy City, Pa. 
Bart. Tutkovics 
Cornelius Gribosky 
St. Clair, Pa. 
Gabriel Csopey 
Perth Amboy,N.J. 
Cornelius Laurisin 
Trenton, N.J. 
Thomas Szabo 
Bayonne,N. J. 
Ireneus Janiczky 
Passaic, N.J. 
John Hrabar 
New Britain, Conn. 
Basil Berecz 
Gary , Indiana 
Peter Lucecko 



1811 Biltmore, Street 
Washington , D . C . 

Pittsburgh Gazette Times 
May 27,1912. p. 6. 

No 11467 d. 

I am informed that on the 28th of May 1912, the laymen of the 
Greek Rite intend to hold meetings in the following places : Brad- 
dock, Pa, Wilkes Barre,Pa., and Perth Amboy,N.J. for the purpose of 


adopting resolutions and directions, to the effect that Bishop So- 
ter Ortynsky shall leave the United States of America at once and 
a new bishop be appointed 

In face of such manner of acting, that totally subverts eccle- 
siastical discipline and attacks the prerogative of the Holy See 
to which alone it belongs to appoint or despose bishops. It is in- 
cumbent upon me to prohibit all Catholics of any rite whatsoever 
to be present at, or take part in any way in said meetings. More- 
over the priests of either Greek or Latin rite are also prohibited 
"sub gravi" to attend or take part in said meetings. 

John Bonzano 
Archbishop of Melitene 
Apostolic Delegate. 


ARV.May 30,1912. p. 4. 

We the representatives of parishes of the Pittsburgh, Pa. terri- 
tory met in Braddock,Pa. , May 22,1912 in the name of the people 
and resolved the following: 

1. We declare our loyalty, filial love to the Holy Roman See 
and the whole Church. 

2 . We hold on to the decisions , which were resolved at the 
General Congress of the Greek Rite Catholic Uhro-Rusin parishes in 
the United States of America, held January 11-12,1910 in'Johnstown, 
Pa. in hope that we Uhro-Rusins will get our own Uhro-Rusin Greek 
Rite Catholic Bishop. On the foundation of these reasons which are 
fearfully stated in the Minutes of this Congres and which Minutes 
were sent to the Holy Father, Pope of Rome, to the Prapagation of 
Faith Congregation in Rome, the Hungarian Government, the. Apostolic 
Delegate in Washington, D.C. 

The meeting was held May 22,1912, i.e. before the Apostolic De- 
legation forbade this meeting, information was sent to all the Dio- 
cesan Latin Rite Catholic Bishops, in whose diocese are Greek Rite 
Catholic parishes , . 

3. At present we are humbly awaiting the firm reply to our 
Minutes and petition, which was resolved at Johns town, Pa. Congress 
sent by the Executive Committee to the Congress . A petition was 
sent to the Holy Father. 

4. We are aware that the activities of Bishop Soter Ortynsky 
are harmful to our Greek Rite Catholic Church and our people. 

a) The activities of Bishop Soter Ortynsky cause us losses , 
because we had expensive Court Cases , into which Court Cases we 
were drawn by Bishop Soter Ortynsky. 

b) On account of Bishop Soter Ortynsky many of our members 
are broken up into two , three groups . 

c) On account of Bishop Soter Ortynskys activities the peop- 
le are demoralized, unsatisfied, argue, fight daily. The consequen- 
ce of these misunderstandings are, that the people are going into 
the Russian Schism, to be riden of Bishop Soter Ortynskys tyrany. 

5. Bishop Soter Ortynsky has belittled, lowered and degraded- 
ed our clergy in front of our and other peoples, by accepting into 
the Greek Rite Catholic Church priests without theological educa- 
tion, vagahunds, as long as they sided with him. We are used to 


have educated, responsible, good charactered clergy.. 

6. We approve unanimously all the actions of the clergy who 
defend our Church against such unfortunate activities in our Church 

7. We approve the support of those clergymen, who are perse- 
cuted by Bishop Soter Ortynsky and his party. We are extending 
our gratitude to them. 

8. We dispise those priests, who for their personal good, vanity 
and titles betrayed and are destroying our Church. 

9. We express our great sorrow upon such a fact, that Bishop 
Soter Ortynsky, on unfounded, false reasons, has asked the recall 
to the Old-country, the worthy priests, who worked earnestly for 
the Church in the United States, for the past 22 years. In the mean- 
time the weak charactered, who did not do any good for the Church 
or peopls only evil, they are rewarded with advantages, elevated 
to Deanship, Vicar etc. ... The only reason is that they are - 
standing by the bishop and are harming the Church and people.. 

10. We plead with the "SOJEDINENIJE" to defend and support - 
the actions of parishes morally and materially as they done it in 
the past, to gain our goal, to receive our own bishop. To live in 
peace and understanding, to work without any hindrance against the 
good of the Church. 

11. For the good of the Church lay aside the demoralization- 
among our people, rather petition the appointment of our bishop as 
soon as possible, a Greek Rite Catholic Rusin from Hungary. Do so 
as soon as possible , because it is very fearful even to think ,how 
cruel is Bishop Soter Ortynsky among our clergy and people. The rea- 
son for this cruel attitude are, that he is not successful in the 
United States with his dangerous politics . Our vacant parishes can- 
not get their own priest. All the parishes and the clergy who do - 
not wish to be subjected to his dangerous politics, spoiling their 
character, naming them Independents. Out of 72 Uhro-Rusin clergy - 
50 are suspended at presen t. It is frieghtening even to think in . ' 
what a turmoil is our Church in the United States of America. 

We hereby declare , that Bishop Soter Ortynsky has no right to 
claim that our people are with him. If Bishop Ortynsky remains fur- 
ther on as a bishop of our people, such a choas exist, that it - 
could destroy the Church and the salvation of pius souls, who num- 
ber 400,000 souls. 

12. We declare that our parishes are so strong, that if we - 
receive a Greek Pite Catholic bishop from Hungary, he will be sup- 
ported according his high office, will build a residence , cathedral , 
seminary etc. . . . 

13. We hereby declare that we are pleased with the actions 
of the Executive Committee of the Johnstown, Pa Congress , which was 
held by our parishes. We also ask them to continue their work in 
the name of our parishes, that we gain our goal, for which goal we 
are working hard for the past 5 years, to get our own Greek Rite Ca 
tholic bishop from Hungary. That is the only way we can expect or- 
der in our Church, otherwise there will be no order never. 

14. We wish that these resolutions be sent by cablegram to 
the Holy Father, the Apostolic Delegate at Washington, D. C. , the 
Cardinal Archbishop of Baltimore, Md. , to the Hungarian Gavernment. 

The Executive Committee is authorized to work in our name. 
All the above resolutions were unanimously accepted. 


The cablegrams were prepared as follows : 

"It is five years that the Uhro-Rusins are working and peti- 
tioning for a Greek Rite Catholic Bishop from Hungary, they are in 
an absolute majority of all the Greek Rite Catholics in the United 
States of America, numbering 400,000 souls. Having 80 well organiz- 
ed parishes. The church property is worth many millions of dollars. 
We wish to have a Greek Rite Catholic Bishop from Hungary instead 
of Bishop Soter Ortynsky, a request still not fulfilled. 

Bishop Soter Ortynsky is revenging himself on the people and 
clergy. Out of 72 of our priests 50 are suspended by Bishop Soter 
Ortynsky, this causes a great disorder, choas misunderstanding , - 
threatning a great loss for our Church and people . On account of 
such reasons we in the territory of Pittsburgh, Pa. , met March 22nd, 
1912 in Braddock,Pa, where 118 representatives of 44 parishes were 

We are humbly pleading and petitioning for intervention to 
save our people for Catholicity, that could happen if we receive 
our Greek Rite Catholic Bishop from Hungary. 

The reasons are to be known from our correspondance with the 
Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D.C. 

The above is with the approval of the parishes in the Pitts- 
burgh, Pa. territory. 

ARV. August 22,1912 

Meeting held in Wilkes Barre,Pa. and Perth Amboy,N.J. 

In Wilkes Barre,Pa August 15,1912 in Concordia Hall Washington 
Street represented 24 parishes with 67 representatives. 

In Perth Amboy,N.J. August 17,1912 in Washington Hall Fayette 
Street, 11 parishes represented by 29 representatives. 

Both resolutions were the same as they were in Braddock,Pa. 

If we take in consideration the circumstances, that '. at the 
Braddock,Pa. meeting were 44 parishes represented by 118 delegates. 
At Wilkes Barre,Pa. 24 parishes with 67 delegates. In Perth Amboy, 
N.J. 11 parishes with 29 delegates. In all three meetings 79 pa- 
rishes with 214 delagates took place. This gives a clear picture - 
that practically all our Uhro-Rusin parishes backed up the action 
of tbe Uhro-Rusin people. It is certain, that under the leadership 
of Bishop Soter Ortynsky our Greek Rite Catholic Churches cannot 
exist. Furthermore the longer his leadership will last, the worst 
it will get, harming both religious and national life. We by all 
means wish to have our own bishop.. 

It is very important that our parishes on these meetings prov - 
ed to the world, that, our people are not supporting Bishop Soter 
Ortynskys party, which is not telling the truth to mislead the 
Church authorities in their goal, to show our action useless, to 
better the position of Bishop Soter Ortynsky, which is contrary 
to the absolute majority, of our Rusin people and clergy, who do 
not wish to hear about Bishop Soter Ortynsky. 

Finally the results of these meetings of our parishes gave 
full satisfaction to the Executive Committee of the Johnstown, Pa. 
Congress. We will work hard and struggle in the interest of our - 
Church and people to conquer Bishop Soter Ortynsky and his Party , 
to receive our own Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic Bishop. 

Paul Zsatkovics 



Pamphlet 1914. pp. 1-14. 


Some time ago there appeared a printed pamphlet replete with 
scurrilous and disloyal attack upon the Right Reverend Soter S . 
Ortynsky, Ruthenian Greek Catholic Bishop of the United States. The 
pamphlet was signed by 48 Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic priests , 
who claim to represent the entire Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic 
clergy and people in the United States of America. The Pamphlet - 
seems to have sent broadcast about last January, but bears the ear- 
lier date of August 31, 1911.. 

It violently attacked Bishop Soter Ortynsky, charging him with nu- 
merous and grave offenses, and had the professed object of secur- 
ing his removal as Bishop. It was addressed to the Latin Prelates 
in America, and copies appear to have been sent to them and also 
to prominent American Catholic clergy and laity as well, as t? high' 
ecclesiastical dignitaris in Rome. 

In order to give apparent weight to their charges the 48 sub- 
scribers took oath to the statement made before the Chancellor of 
the Latin Rite Diocese of Scranton,Pa. , who is said in the pamph- 
let to have been delegated for that purpose by the Right Reverend 
Michael J. Hoban, Latin Rite Bishop of Scranton,Pa. 

Inasmuch as the pamphlet is calculated to do serious harm to 
our Bishop and the Rtathenian Greek Rite Catholic Church at large 
and inasmuch as it reflects on the loyalty, character and dignity 
of the entire body of the Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic clergy, we 
the undersigned Greek Catholic priests , having seen the pamphlet - 
referred to, and being assembled, uncanonical permission in New 
York City on the 12th of March A.D. 1912, deem it proper to call 
the attention of the ecclesiastical authorities to the unparalled 
gravity of the offense against decency, justice, good sense and Ca- 
tholic usage, committed by the publication of the unfounded and 
scurrilous statements contained in the said pamphlet. 

The indecent character is evidence of the weakness of their - 
case. Truth does not require violence or vitupiration , but calls 
for a clear statement of the facts . 

The 48 subscribers represent nobody but themselves. They repre- 
sent no canonical gathering or delegated authority. The majority - 
of the Greek Rite Catholic clergy knew nothing of their meeting - 
or their pamphlet until the publication appeared, Ruthenian Greek 
Rite Catholics were equally ignorant. 

Of the 48 subscribers some are excommunicated, others suspend- 
ed, others recalled to Europe by Rome, others are acting without 
faculties and still others are entirely unknown to Bishop Soter 
Ortynsky. They have in consequence no status except that of muti- 
neers , voice nothing except rebellion against constituted authori- 

The mode they adopt is an outrage on Catholic order and usage 
It is the duty of complaints to wait the decision of the Apostolic 


Delegate or Pome to their appeal, and abide by those decisions 
They have no business taking matters out of the hands of the pro- 
per authorities', and rushing into print with an appeal to the out- 
side world. This was merely a crude and foolish attempt to inti- 
midate the Apostolic See. 

The Superior of the Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic Bishop is 
the Apostolic Delegate in- Washington, D.C. and not the Latin rite 
bishop of Scranton ,Pa. , who ought not to identify himself with 
mutineers against all Catholic authority. The so-called delegat- 
ed authority to his Chancellor was invalid, and in the nature of 
a scandal. We have a right to ask, who appointed him bishop over 
priests officiating in other dioceses, when even in his own dio- 
cese he has no authority over Ruthenian Greeek Rite Catholic pri- 
ests except in conjunction with the Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic 
bishop. Such action constitute grave and uncanonical interference 
that is injurious to the discipline of the Church 

The priests who attacked Bishop Soter Ortynsky condemn them- 
selves sufficiently by the scurrilous nature of their attaks 
and their disloyal and rebellious attitude towards the prelate ap- 
pointed over them by the Holy See itself. These priests are not 
likely to cease making trouble so long, as they can secure the 
support from a single Latin rite bishop. 

Each of the 48 subscribers swore to the truth of the entire 
mass of allegations and the innumerable charges contained in the 
pamphlet. It would be impossible even for a single priest to be 
cognizant of all details ennumerated , and would seem to indicate 
perjury on a wholesale scale. At least six of the priests never 
saw Bishop Soter Ortynsky, yet they swear as confidently as the 
rest. The majority could speak from hearsay, which is not proper 

The action of the Holy See in appointing a Ruthenian Greek Ri- 
te Catholic bishop for the United States of America made a new de- 
parture in the hierarchial administration of the Catholic Church 
in thier country It was not, however, without precedents, as in Ga- 
licia, Austria. The Holy See has jurisdiction over three sets of 
dioceses in the same territory. The hierarchies, Latin Rite, Ruthe- 
nian Greek Rite Catholic and Armenian Catholic, have their own Me- 
tropolitans, bishops and clergy. In Lemberg-Lvov, the Capital of 
Galicia, there are 3 Catholic Rites work in entire harmony. 

In this country there is a slight difference in the status of 
Greek Rite Catholic bishop in as much as he has no diocese. But 
the appointment by the Holy See of the Ruthenian Greek Rite Catho- 
lic bishop for the entite United States carried it the duty of ev- 
ry diocesan Latin rite bishop cooperating with the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic bishop by surrendering to him all necessary power - over 
the Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic congregations committed to his 
care. Until such full powers are posessed by the Ruthenian Greek 
Rite Catholic bishcp, anarchy and choas must prevail, more less. 
Fortunately most of the Latin prelates have cordially given this 
full authority to the Ruthenian Creek Rite Catholic bishop, having 
viewed the matter from the highest and broadest grounds of eccle- 
siastical statemenship. Unfortunately a few bishops have not ta- 
ken this wise course and their opposition to the Ruthenian Greek 
Rite Catholic Bishop appointed by Rome has naturally conduced to 
such conditions of maturity, as are revealed by the pamphlet. 


Ruthenians constitute the largest population of the Eastern - 
Catholic rites, numbering in Austria-Hungary some four and half - 
millions. The proximity of this large Catholic population of Eas- 
tern Rite to the 80 millions of Russian Orthodox Schismatics has 
made its preservation and care a matter of solicitude to the Holy 
See, owing to the aspirations to win back the East to Catholicism. 
This sentiment has been expressed by various Pontiffs and is a - 
reason for equal solicitude in this country. We should look for- 
ward to the creation of a Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic diocese - 
or dioceses here. 

The reason for a separate hierarchy for the Ruthenian Greek - 
Rite Catholic Church in the United States of America is a very - 
different one from that urged by certain foreign Catholics such 
as the Poles, for having a bishop of their own. With the Poles 
their agitation is based merely on nationality. They follow the 
same Latin rite as other Latin rite Catholics. With the Rutheni- 
an Greek Rite Catholics, however, there is an absolute difference 
in the rite, form of worship and usage. They follow the Mass and 
services of the Eastern Christiandom and not those of the West. . 
The liturgical language also widely differ from those rites suf- 
ficiently to give them the necessary supervision and on this ac- 
count the Holy See has appointed a special bishop for the rite 
No question of Ruthenian racial affiliations or nationality whe- 
ther Austrian or Hungarian is involved, but only that of the re- 
ligious rite. 

Having been appointed by the Holy See, Bishop Soter Ortynsky 
is bound to act always as the vigilant guardian and protector of 
that rite and its privileges and to champion its cause whenever 
necessary. The Ruthenian Greek Rite should be established on the 
same firm footing on which it has been placed in Europe, so that 
its integrity and purity may be always preserved. Ruthenians are 
passionately attached to their ancient rite and exceedingly sensi 
tive to anything that looks like an attempt to tamper with it. 

Each State ought to have in its religious society acts , pro- 
visions for the incorporation of Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic 
Churches equally with corporations of the Latin Rite. At present 
in the absence of such desirable provision, it is often necessary 
to incorporate congregations under the provisions relating to La- 
tin Rite Churches in order to comply with the law, but with the 
understanding that the name of the Latin rite bishop appears only 
pro forma and leaves all real control and authority in the hands 
of the Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic Bishop. 

Ruthenians are much opposed to the appearance of the name of 
the Latin rite bishop in connection with their congregations , as 
they apprehend it, it means some attempt to Latinize them. They 
will often prefer to desert to the Orthodox Schismatics - rather 
than to run, what they consider the risk of being Latinized - or 
brought under the influence of the Latin hierarchy, so that there 
is danger of schism and great loss of membership to the Catholic 
Church unless the greatest circumspection be observed in this mat- 
ter, A Chancery suit, now pending in Jersey City, N.J. , respecting 
the Greek Rite Catholic Congregation, involves this very point. 
It was partly for these reasons that the Holy See appointed a spe- 
cial bishop for congregations of the Greek Rite Catholic Rutheni- 
ans . 


The 48 subscribers to the pamphlet ask for the removal of Bi- 
shop Soter Ortynsky , for the appointment of a secular bishop and 
for the whole body of the Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic clergy 
and laity, to be placed in the meantime under the authority of 
the Latin Rite Bishop. This is a delibarate defiance of the Holy 
See, which enjoin an entirely different order of obedience. It 
is the act of the mutineers; it would disrupt the Ruthenian 
Greek Rite Catholic Church in this country. 

Only a few years before the appointment of Bishop Soter Ortyn- 
sky many of the same mutineers agitated with still greater violen- 
ce for the removal of the Apostolic Visitator Andrew Hodobay, who 
came from their own country, Hungary, and they are now simply re- 
peating the same mutinous tactics. It seems that they would like 
to assume the prerogative of the Holy See to appoint the bishop. 

All the charges in the recent pamphlet have been considered 
and passed upon by the Apostolic Delegate and decided against 
the complaints. It ought therefore, to be unnecessary to make any 
reply to those attacks other than to point out these decissions 
of the Apostolic Delegate. So misleading, however are all the al- 
legations made that it seems desirable to explain something of 
their nature to the Latin rite bishops who may be largely unfami- 
liar with the character of the attacks . 

Turning only to the more serious statements made in the pam- 
phlet, most of them are mere gossip and illustrate the folly and 
malice actuating those who make them. It is declared that Bishop 
Soter Ortynsky stated that Rome was a modern Sodom and Gomorrha. 
A Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic priest, the Rev. Leo Sembratovicz, 
who studied in Rome made the simple statement in the presence of 
Bishop Soter Ortynsky, that Rome was a Sodom and Gomorrha, referr- 
ing to the evil conditions there of civic government by Social-^— 
ists, infidels, Jews and other antichristian and anticatholic ele- 
ments . This very proper statement was perverted and placed in Bi- 
shop Soter Ortynsky" s mouth. 

The pamphlet alleges that Bishop Soter Ortynsky introduces - 
into the Church civil factional politics. This allegation exposes 
the character of some of the subscribers, who are anticatholic at 
heart and would like to desert the Catholic Church and join the 
Russian Orthodox Church, because their political affiliations are 
with that Schismatic Church. Experience in Galicia shows that 
priests who are pro-Russian are apostates whenever the opportuni- 
ty occurs. Neither Bishop Soter Ortynsky nor any Catholic bishop 
can favor elements so certain in their Catholicity. Such persons 
are very properly "Schismatics" and "personae non gratae" in the 
Catholic Church. But this does not imply any national antagonism. 

The pamphlet also complains of Bishop Soter Ortynsky dividing 
Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic congragations located in the same 
place, Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholics come from two Countries Aus- 
tria and Hungary, where conditions are widely different. In the 
United States of America these two elements are thrown together 
and animosities and divisions often arise. Before Bishop Soter Or- 
tynsky came, many towns had two such congregations one Austrian - 
or rather Galician Greek Rite Catholic congregation, the other 
Hungarian. After the Bishop came, those of the Hungarian Greek 
Rite Catholic priests who subscribed the pamphlet did not wish to 
acknowledge him simply because he came from Galicia. This action 


of the Hungarian priests caused trouble and led the loyal Galici- 
an members to form congregations canonically united with their 
bishop with many equally loyal Hungarian congregations. But this 
was the fault of those Hungarian Greek Rite Catholic priests who 
are among the subscribers to the pamphlet and who are once more 
stirring up trouble. 

The pamphlet refers to the fact that lawsuits are instituted 
in several Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic congregations. As a mat- 
ter of fact, there were only a few such lawsuits, and in every 
case they arose over the question of control. Turbulant laymen 
led astray by the suggestion of recalcitrant priest, seek to get 
control in church matters . They endeavor to remove worthy priest- 
s in order to install unworthy successors.. The priests who sub- 
scribed the pamphlet have been active trouble makers in this ve- 
ry matter. 

It is also charged that Bishop Soter Ortynsky suspended cer- 
tain priests. This could not be avoided, when some of them were 
refractory. It has been done with the knowledge and approval of 
the Apostolic Delegate 

Another charge is that Bishop Soter Ortynsky' s attitude has 
encouraged secessions to the Russian Orthodox Church, 25,000 per- 
sons are mentioned as having gone over. The absurdity of this is 
evident, when the Russian Archbishop only reports a Church mem- 
bership of about 11,000 in the United States of America. On the 
other hand Bishop Soter Ortynsky 's efforts have met with such 
success that several Russian Orthodox congregations have come o- 
ver to Catholicity, such as those at Passaic, N.J. Chicago,Ill. - 
Chester, Pa. Willington,Del. Edwards vi lie, Pa, Wilkes Barre, Pa... 
The proselyting work of the Russian Church is largely on paper. 
With the large financial aid they receive from the Russian Synod 
at St. Petersburg, they will establish a church for even four or 
five families . This gives the appearance of numerous parishes 
and enables them to make large claims respecting the success - 
of their proselyting work in their reports to Russia. This na- 
turally bring them additional financial aid, but the movement - 
is more apparent than serious and extends little further than 
the few people won over by financial backing referred to. In so- 
me cases secessions to the Russian Church were caused by recal- 
citrant priests who subscribed to the attacks on Bishop Soter 
Ortynsky. They deserted their flock and left them a prey to - 
the Russian Schismatics, as Fr. Theophan Obuskevic at Mayfield, 
Pa., and Fr. Eugene Homicsko at Passaic, N.J. 

It also charged that Bishop Soter Ortynsky accepted priests 
who came from Europe without proper papers. A committee appoint- 
ed by the undersigned to investigate all the charges has been 
permitted to see the records in the Bishop's books dealing with 
these circumstances. The papers were found to be in proper or- 
der. They also are aware that some of the priests who made this 
accusation against Bishop Soter Ortynsky are themselves without 
any papers . 

It is charged that Bishop Soter Ortynsky maintains a store 
for the sale of church articles, an employment bureau and some- 
thing like a Savings Bank. These are conducted with the Cathed- 
ral parish in Philadelphia, Pa. The store and employment bureau 
were first conducted by laymen and are now run by the Sisters 


of Charity. The alleged deposits simply relate to money borrowed 
for the building fund of the Cathedral 

It is stated that Bishop Soter Ortynsky charges excessive pri- 
ces for dispensations. The undersigned priests have always obtain- 
ed them for their parishioners at no higher rates than are usual 
in parishes of the Latin rite. 

The petty malice shown by these 48 subscribers is evidence by 
the statement that Bishop Soter Ortynsky have permission for the 
celebration of two Masses on week day. This was case of two sepa- 
rate congregations, AT Altoona,Pa. and Ramey,Pa, that wished to 
celebrate a festival on an American holiday , when they were free 
from work and could attend church. One of the congregations was 
in danger of going to the Schism, if they could not secure a Ca- 
tholic priest to celebrate Mass for them on that day. TO safeguard 
the faithful the bishop permitted the priest, Rev. Peter Luczeczko 
to have two Masses, considering the holiday as equivalent to the 
festival that it was the intention of the congregation to observe. 
The malice is especially evident in the fact that the priest, who 
secured the permission from the bishop, is one of those who sign- 
ed the pamphlet attacking him for this very thing. 

The complaints charge that Bishop Soter Ortynsky uses strong 
language to the clergy and people . This complaint is only made by 
those of the recalcitrant priests, who do not like the strong lan- 
guage in which he condemns and exposes their wrongful conduct to 
the faithful . 

The complaints do not hesitate to lower themselves to copying 
scurrilous attacks by schismatic Russian papers on the moral cha- 
racter of their ecclesiastical superior , Bishop Soter Ortynsky , 
They accept these malicious fabrications as true, when it is 
well known that those papers throw mud at all Catholic authorities. 

Among other scurrilous and untrue statements are those declar- 
ing that Bishop Soter Ortynsky transfers, appoints priests for mo- 
netary considerations. The undersigned are able to testify that - 
in their own cases all their appointments and transfers have been 
made by the bishop with the single eye to the best interests of 
each congregation. 

As above mentioned, all the charges made by the opponents a- 
gainst Bishop Soter Ortynsky have already been investigated by - 
the Apostolic Delegate and found to be without foundation; the - 
mutineers are, therefore spreading broadcast a mass of disproved 
and outrages allegations for the evident purpose of throwing dust 
in the eyes of the Latin prelates and seeking to secure their sup- 
port, when they had lost their case with the Apostolic Delegate - 
and Rome . 

One of the stricking charges in the pamphlet calls for some - 
notice Bishop Soter Ortynsky's opponents seek to discredit him 
by alleging that in Austria he was officially declared to have 
suffered attacks of temporary insanity. The statement is untrue, 
but the explanation is most simple and creditable to the bishop. 
When a priest in Austria, he on one occasion condemned in the 
course of his preaching in outspoken words the polititions ,in jus- 
tice and persecution of the Catholic Church carried out by the 
Emperor Joseph II. in the 18th "century. The bold accusations were 
true, but they made the priest liable under Austrian law to punish- 
ment for the crime of lese-majeste, which covers any attack on 


members of the Imperial House. The words of the outspoken priest 
met with general approval and his friends were fortunately en- 
abled to secure his release from the cluthes of the law by a 
technical plea of inadvertant remarks made by an eloquent orator 
under the presure of unusual emotion. These facts were well 
known to the Holy Father, when Bishop Soter Ortynsky was appoint- 
ed in charge of the Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic Church in the 
United States. 

While the Apostolic Delegate has satisfactorily disposed of - 
the allegations, the undersigned would suggest as a means of fin- 
ally silencing the scurrilous attacks, that have once more appear- 
that the Latin rite bishops interested appointed a select commis- 
sion of bishops to investigate all the charges made against Bish- 
op Soter Ortynsky of Scranton pamphlet, and that the Bishop of 
Scran ton should appear before that commission as he seems to have 
taken an active part in supporting the unfounded allegations ref- 
fered to. 

Two of the priests whose names appear subscribed to the attacks 
upon Bishop Soter Ortynsky have in writing repudiated the use of 
their signatures, one of the them, Rev. John Dorozinsky declared 
that he did not give authority to append his name to the document 
and that he disapproves of it; the other Rev. Demetrius Chomjak, - 
who signed the statement, now declares that he wishes to retract 
his endorsement to the pamphlet and he holds it to be not conson- 
ant with the Catholic propriety and discipline to send such accu- 
sations out broadcast as has been done. 

We the undersigned Ruthenian Greek Rite catholic priests 
stand as loyal supporters of the Right Rev. Stephen Soter Ortyn- 
skyas our canonically appointed bishop, and we refuse to recogni- 
ze the recalcitrant priests who signed the attacks upon him - as 
Catholic clergy, because they have waged continual opposition to 
the bishop appointed over them by the Holy See . We hold further 
that the action of the agitators places them in a position that 
almost savors of the ecclesiastical censures contained in the 
Constitution "Apostolic Sedis" paragraph 5-6. 

If the Latin prelates would not listen to them, the mutiny 
would be soon over. It is respectfully submitted that every Latin 
rite bishop should sternly tell these recalcitrant priests that 
they are Greek Rite Catholics and they are bound to obey their 
Greek Rite Catholic Bishop. 

And we, the real Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic clergy of the 
United States of America, in council canonically assembled, with 
profound expression of esteem beg their Eminence and the Most Rev 
verend Archbishops and the Right Reverend Bishops to pay no at- 
tention to the unfounded and unworthy attacks made by unrepresen- 
tative and irresponsible priests against the bishop. They should 
be loyally obeying. We ask the Latin rite prelates to support and 
not to hinder the zealous Ruthenian Greek Rite Catholic Bishop 
who is laboring under circumstances so difficult and discourag- 
ing, that his efforts call for the admiration of all. 

In hope, that he may be long spared to carry on the work of 
uniting and establishing the Greek Fite Catholic congregatiohs 
in this country, we subscribe ourselves: 



Derzyruka, Scranton,Pa 
Csornyak * Bridgeport, Conn. 
Strutynsky , Chicago, 111. 
Balogh, Whiting, Ind. * 
Lysiak, Yonkers.N.Y. 
Hanulya,* Allegheny, Pa 
Mirossay ,* Yonkers,N.Y. 
Gojdics,* South Fork, Pa 
Kury llo , Pi ttsbur gh , Pa 
Vas zczsyn , McKeespor t , Pa . 
Poniatisin, Newark, N.J. 
Pawlak, Ansonia, Conn. 
Zalitac, New Britain, Conn. 
Korba,* Duquesne,Pa 
Sidoriak, Passaic, N.J. 
Baransky , N . Hampton , Pa 
01eksiv,Alden Station, Pa 
Parskouta,* Rankin, Pa. 
Petrowsky , Chicago , 111 . 
Jakimovicz, Troy,N.Y. 
Komporday , Pi ttsbur gh , Pa * 
Kuziv, 01yphant,Pa. 
Turula ,Woonsocket , R. I . 
Kuziv, Wilkes Barre,Pa. 
Caplinsky, Perth Amboy,N.J. 
Pelechowicz, Old Forge, Pa. 
Merenkiv, Elmire Hgths,N.Y. 
Strocky, Chester, Pa. 
Teodorowicz, Sykesville,Pa 

Bernatzky, Berwick, Pa. 
A. Lotowicz, Monessen,Pa. 
Vladimir Lotowicz, Edwardsville, Pa 
V. Kovaliczky * Carteret, N.J. 

Leukanic * Philadelphia, Pa. 

Korytovsky,New York,N.Y. 

Pidhorecky , New York ,N .Y . 

Ulitzky, Jersey City, K.J. 

Orun, Philadelphia, Pa. 

Dorozynsky , Barnesbora , Pa 

Thegze , * Hawk Run , Pa 
J.Zacharko, Manchester, N.H. 

D. Dobrotvor, Cleveland, O. 
Ostap, Johnstown, Pa 
Lukawsky, Ford City, Pa. 
Dowhowicz, Buffalo, N.Y. 
Kaminsky ,* Minersville,Pa 
Bilansky, Rochester, N.Y. 
Mitro,* Cleveland, Ohio 
Lupis,* Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Matyaczko,* Clairton,Pa. 
Perizok, Centralia,Pa 
Sterniuk, Ambridge,Pa 
Wolosczuk. McAdoo,Pa 

B- Zacerkovny , Youngs town , Ohio 

E. Bartos , Watervliet,N.Y. 
Prodan, Chicago, 111. 
Zoldak, St. Louis, Mo. 
Stech, Belfield,N.D. 
Wolynetz, Elizabeth, N.J. 




* Uhro-Rusin. 

NO 14191 d 

1811 Biltmore Street 

Washing ton, B,C. 

August 25, 1913 
Kalendar Sirotskoho Domu. 
Philadelphia, Pa. 1934. p. 53 

Your Lordship: 

His Eminence Cardinal Gotti, Prefect of the Sacred Congrega- 
tion of Propaganda, in a letter dated the 25th of May instructs - 
me to announce to the America Hierarchy that the Holy Father has 
conferred upon the Right Reverend Soter Ortynsky full-Ordinary ju- 
risdiction over all the faithful and clergy of the Ruthenian Rite 
living in the United States. 

Upon the receipt, therefore, of this letter all the jurisdic 
tion that you have had over the clergy and laity and over all the 
affairs of the Ruthenian Rite will cease to exist. 

I beg you in this transition to do your best in arranging - 
with Bishop Soter Ortynsky all financial questions pending in the 


Ruthenian Parishes, to make sure in accordance with the laws of - 
your States the validity of title to all the property involved and 
finally, I beg you to exhort the Ruthenian clergy and people to ac- 
cept with docility the change brought about by this Decree, and to 
recognize Bishop Soter Ortynsky as their own proper Bishop. 

In case there are no Ruthenian Catholics at present in your - 
diocese, this disposition of the Holy See will serve as a guide - 
for you in the future if they should ever come to the diocese. 

Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter. 

With sentiments of profound respect and best wishes I remain 

Sincerely Yours in Christ 

Archbishop Giovanni Bonzano 
Apostolic Delegate 1911-1922 


ARV. July 8, 1954. pp. 1-12. 
Your Excellency John Bonzano 
Apostolic Delegate 
Washington , D . C . 

Your Excellency: 

It is without doubt well known to Your Excellency that within 
the territory of the United States of America, especially in the 
States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio, live about 
400,000 Greek Rite Catholics OF Uhro-Rusin nationality, who have 
about 100 parishes, for the most part well organized, with beauti- 
ful churches , and approximately 75 priests . The above mentioned 
people are well organized, having their own organization the Greek 
Catholic Union, which members about 1000 lodges with a membership 
of around 50,000 and property which is valued at about $500,600. 

These people have been striving for the past 22 years to bring 
their religious affairs into order and to assure their nationalis- 
tic future, which they deem would be attained, if they were to ha- 
ve their own ecclesiastical head, viz: Greek Rite Catholic Bishop 
of their own nationality. 

Besides the Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholics, there are in the 
United States Greek Rite Ruthenians also from the Province of Ga- 
licia, Austria, but the number of these is by far smaller than the 
number of the Greek Rite Catholics from Hungary, the ratio being 
about one to three . The Galicians did not bother themselves with 
bringing the religious affairs of the Greek Rite Catholics into or 
der, did not labor for the attainment of a Greek Rite Catholic Bi- 
shop, since they were always occupied with their national progress 
which tendency was greatly detrimental to their religious welfare 
This nationalistic endeavor is being cultivated by them to such a 
extent, that even in their churches they devote more time to it, t 
than to their religion and salvation. 

Between these two nationalities there exist great differences 
which make it totally impossible for them to be united in religi- 
our affairs, to be under one and the same Greek Rite Catholic Bi- 


These differences are as follows: 

The Greek Rite Catholics from Hungary devote their greatest e- 
nergies to their religious affairs and have no special nationalis- 
tic politics; on the other hand the Galician Greek Rite Catholics 
devote their time chiefly to the flourishment of their nationalis- 
tic politics, their aim being to raise it to so high a pedestal, 
whereby they would be able to direct and aid the national Ukrai- 
nian politics in Galicia. They sacrifice more for their political 
aims than for religious purpeses. The reason therefore is that 
they are perpetually incited by their clerical and lay leaders 
Their Journals are all filled with description of certain natio- 
nalistic aims which tend to enthuse the people in this one aim - 
all their leaders are united whether they be clerical Ukrainians , 
radical Ukrainians or socialistic Ukrainians. It is natural that - 
the Uhro-Rusin people who know nothing of these politics can not 
donate for these, political aims, for no Ukrainian institutions , 
schools etc 

The Uhro-Rusins have wholly different customs from the Galici- 
ans; their church hymns are different, and even in the performan- 
ce of ceremonies there are noticeable differences. 

And all these are such causes , on account of which the Greek 
Rite Catholics from Hungary could under no circumstances whatever 
live under one Church Head, unde*- one Greek Rite Catholic Bishop. 
Between these two peoples there are such differences which make 
it absolutely necessary that the Greek Rite Catholic Uhro- Rusins 
have their Uhro-Rusin bishop, and the Galicians their Galician 
Greek Rite Catholic bishop. And if perchance they were to be for- 
cibly united, then there would be no peace and order, but perpetu- 
al wrangling, through which the Catholic Church would loose consi- 

The Uhro-Rusin people have labored energetically , with all 
their means for the attainment of a Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite bishop; 
of this labor Your Excellency may throughly convince yourself - 
by persuing all those documents, which are already on file in the 
Apostolic Delegation. It came to a pass, however, we think through 
political machinations , that the Holy Apostolic See appointed in 
1907 a Greek Rite Catholic titular bishop not from the Uhro-Rusin 
side, which had labored for the attainment of this for years and 
sacrificed a great deal for this, but, from the side of the Gali- 
cians, who had done nothing, sacrificed nothing for this cause. 

The Uhro-Rusin people did at the very beginning become convim 
ced, that if they shall not have their own Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite 
Catholic Bishop, they shall cease to exist in America, shall beco- 
me the slaves of a foreign policy. For this reason, they, together 
with the absolute majority of the Uhro-Rusin Groek Rite Catholic- 
clergy, began a defensive action, latter a bitter struggle, to be 
separated from the Ukrainians, withdraw from the power of Bishop 
Soter Ortynsky, and that the Holy Apostolic See grant them a Uhro 
Rusin bishop. This struggle was great, bitter and God knows with- 
er it would have gone to, if it were not for a few Latin rite dio- 
cesan bishops, who took under their protection a number of our 
persecuted parishes and priests. 

The Uhro-Rusin people, being convinced of their right and jus- 
tice, were of the firm opinion that their desires and pleas will 
be fulfilled at all hazards, and this opinion was shared by all 


who knew of the conditions existing betweenthe Uhro-Rusins and Ga- 
lic an Rusyns. But, it is sad to say, this, to the great astonish- 
ment of the whole Uhro-Rusin people, did not happen so, because re- 
cently it was announced that the Propaganda de Fide instead of 

granting the Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic people their Uhro-Ru- 
sin bishop, granted Bishop Soter Or tynsky full powers, exempted - 
him from the jurisdiction of the Latin rite diocesan bishops and 
subjected him solely to your Excellency. 

Through this decree of the Propaganda de Fide the faithful Uhro- 
Rusin clergy, having lost the patronage of the Latin rite bishops, 
in order to remain lawful Catholic priests they were forced to sub- 
ject themselves to this decree and acknowledge Bishop Soter Ortyn- 
sky as their full powered bishop. 

With this, however, the bringing into order of the religious 
affairs of the Uhro-Rusin people is by no means finished; on the 
contrary, it is now that enormeus troubles will arise, which may 
cause great calamities , the total dispersion of the Uhro-Rusin - 
Greek Rite Catholic people, that people who has so earnestly la- 
bored in the interest of bringing its church affairs into order. 

Your Excellency: The Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic people - 
can under no consideration renounce its intention of having its 
own Uhro-Rusin bishop, shall never acquiece to being ecclesiasti- 
cally united with the Galician Ukrainians , with the Galician Ukra- 
inian bishop as their Head, since that would mean the end of the- 
ir and their descendants' existance in America, and furthermore 
the demolition of everything what the Uhro-Rusin people have by 
great labor and enormous sacrifices attained for themselves. The 
Uhro Rusin people are averse to seeing the day when under the gui- 
se of religion, under the guise of the Catholic Church they might 
be thrown into the slavery of Ukrainism. 

In informing Your Excellency, as the highest ecclesiastical 
authority in the United States of America, of this, we humbly beg 
to bring to Your Excellency's notice the fact that this is not a 
desire of some rebellious small faction , but it is the desire of 
the whole upright, pius and diligent Uhro-Rusin people, who have 
wholly legal pretentions to have a Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic 
bishop of their own. We furthermore request Your Excellency to ta.- 
ke this communication into your kind consideration and to follow 
the action of the Uhro-Rusin people closely; and having throughly 
studied the situation to accomplish that the Uhro-Rusin people - 
get their own Greek Rite Catholic Uhro-Rusin bishop. This may be 
more easily accomplished, since Bishop Soter Ortynsky during his 
six years regime has totally separated the Uhro-Rusins from the 
Galician Rusyns. Finally we humbly announce that if this desire 
of the Uhro-Rusin people were not to be taken into consideration 
the responsibility for the great disorders, troubles shall rest 
upon those who are mechanically instructing this affair. 

Repeating our humble announcement and kissing Your Excellencys 
blessing Right we beg to remain with profound respect and filial 

Your Excellency's most humble sons: 

In the name of the Greek Catholic Union, the religious natio- 
nal organization of the Uhro-Rusin people . : 

Michael S. Rushin, President 
Michael A Mac zko, Secretary 


In the name of the Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic parishes 
the Executive Committee of the Congress of Johnstown, Pa. 

John Uhrin, President 

Paul J. Zsatkovics, Secretary 


"Nauka" . Ungvar November 15,1913 
No XI. p. 30. 

The Uhro-Rusin clergy appeared in the Chancery Office of Bi- 
shop Soter Ortynsky to express their filial respect and give a 
pledge of obedience. This act touched the bishop deeply, he ac- 
cepted the clergy and promised to colaborate, forget the misun- 
derstandings , work together for the good of the Greek Rite Catho- 
lic Church in the United States of America. With joy, we are mak- 
ing this announcement, because harmony came about from the desire 
of hearts. It was a scandal, brother fought a brother, a son went 
against the father, the priest against the bishop. No blessing of 
God could been on a brother killing struggle. 

Both sides done a praiseworthy deed, when they set aside all 
hatred and began to walk on the road of mutual love . With united 
strenght they will spread and make progress in the spiritual life 
in the United States of America. But, be aware of the restless un- 
satisfied souls, not to let them hammer a wedge between you, not 
to destroy the work of the national leaders . 



The Ecclesiastical National Congress held December 10-11,1913 
in Johnstown, Pa, the Authorized Committee presented the resolu- 
tions to Bishop Soter Ortynsky Greek Rite Catholic Bishop, of the 
United States of America, he accepted and approved the request of 
the Uhro-Rusin people. 

1. The church property must be deeded according the Charter 
on the Congregation or Corporation, under the following condition 
stated in the Charter: 

a) This church must be united for ever with the Holy See of 

b) This church must be under the jurisdiction of a Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Bishop appointed and sent by Rome. 

c) The church is to use the Greek Rite in the Old-Slovanic 
language . 

d) The church cannot accept a priest without the jurisdic- 
tion of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop. 

e) The above mentioned conditions cannot be changed without 
a written permission by a Greek Rite Catholic Bishop. 

2. The officers of the church are the :Trustees, ushers , col- 
lectors , who represent the bishop in the parish with the priest. 

3 . In an Uhro-Rusin parish only - Uhro-Rusin or of Uhro- 
Rusin parents born priest can function. A cantor can be chosen 
who must be approved by the bishop . 

4. A vacant parish must be given for competition (konkurs) . 

5. The Bishop will present the names of competing clergy, of 


which the parishioners may choose one. Still ,in this matter the 
bishop will deside as in other matters . 

6. If there is a major trouble in the Uhro-Rusin parish the' 
bishop is entitled to send a 3 member committee, which members a- 
re to be of Uhro-Rusin origin. 

7. If this committee could not come to a peaceful understan- 
ding in the request of the parish. A meeting will be. called at 
which meeting the Chairman will be one of the committee and one 
of the layity The bishop is to respect the decision and decide ac- 
cording the Church law. 

8. At a parish meeting only those may speak, who are in go- 
od standing in the parish, who fulfill their obligation and have 
made their Easter-duty. 

9. A cantor chosen at a parish meeting, from among those 
that were competing and the bishop has to approve him. 

10. A cantor with a diploma to be chosen, but, those that a- 
re serving for the past two years, should not be ignored, if they 
are capable to fulfill the requirements even without diploma. 

11. All the services are to be celebrated in such a language 
and custom also the Sacraments to be administered according the 
Eastern Rite of the Uhro-Rusin Church. The future of the church - 
matters is to be decided in the United States of America by a 
Greek Rite Catholic Uhro-Rusin Synod. Which will be recognized by 
all the Greek Rite Catholics. 

12. The Uhro Rusin parish schools are to use the etiologi- 
cal language and orthography. (Spelling) . 

13 . The Uhro-Rusin libraries are to be set with etimological 
orthography and the written literature . 

14 Prayer books in Old-slovanic language and the school book- 
s to be written in the etimological language which are to be us- 
ed in our Uhro-Rusin schools . 

15. The church income and expenses are to be reported yearly 
or when the bishop will request it, it is to be sent to him. 

16. To establish higher educational schools, which are to be 
under the bishops supervision and two committeemen, a priest and 
a layman. 

17. The priest consul tors are appointed by the bishop and 
the layman by the school organization. 

18. The Eparchial Funds are to be controlled by the Consisto- 
ry Commission ad hoc , appointed from among the clergy and laity . 

19. In cities where there are two Uhro-Rusin churches, but, 
they cannot exist, they should join one of the churches, if the 
parishioners agree . 

20. If a new parish is to be organized, it has to have a 
Charter of the majority of the faithful. If the majority is Uhro- 
Rusin, the parish is to be Uhro-Rusin, If Galician, then Galician. 
A new parish to be organized must have the permission from the bi- 
shop to do so. 

21. The Sacrament of Holy Orders, Confirmation and Matrimony 
to be celebrated according the Typik (ordo) which is accepted by 
the Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

22 . The bishop is to accept married clergy from the Old-coun- 
try if they have a letter of leave of absence from the Eparchial 
Bishop, and if there is a vacancy. 

23. The bishop is to ordain married men to the priesthood - 


for the Greek Rite Catholic Church according the Church law. 

24. The bishop is to defend and protect the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church and her Rite. 

25. The Bishop is to appoint a Vicar General with the ap- 
proval of the Apostolic See. 

26. The Vicar General is to have the necessary power to 
act in the Greek Rite Catholic Church in the United States of A- 

27. The parishes obligate themselves to pay the monthly 
yearly expenses of the bishop, the Eparchial Schools etc., not on- 
ly support the bishop, but the other officers too. 

28. The support of the bishop and schools will be the obli- 
gation of parishes according their classification. 

29 We are asking the bishop to help us in our interests 
for the sake of peace and order, to get a Uhro-Rusin bishop for 
us, to have our own blood bishop 

30. The bishop is to use an official title "GREEK RITE CA- 

31. We petition the bishop to accept the resolutions of 
the Uhro-Rusin people, and approve them with his signature, that 
a copy be sent to every delegate of the Johns town, Pa. , Congress - 
of the Uhro-Rusin parishes. 

Accepted and approved in Philadelphia, Pa. December 12,1913. 

Soter Ortynsky, Bishop 

Fr. Basil Stecjuk, Secretary 



Eparchial Vis tnik, March 15 
1914. # 1. 
No 242. 

The Decree of the Apostolic See is given through the Propaga- 
tion of Faith Congregation, May 28,1913, No 33 346 

The churches and the bishop which were until now under the 
Diocesan Latin Rite bishops jurisdiction, become an independent 
Ordinary and Exarchate, subjected directed directly to the Holy 
See. It is to be administered as an ordinary Eparchy, being a- 
nother territory to act validly which development will be benefi- 
cial to the Church and people. The First Vicar General is appoin- 
ted, namely Fr. Alexander Dzubay, Greek Rite Catholic priest in 


No 480 1910. 

a) Under the above number is the appointment of the First 
Chapter officers: Fr.s: Valentine Gorzo and John Konstankevich. 

The installation will take place October 2nd by Metropolitan 
Andrew Septicky and Diomede Falconi Apostolic Delegate 


b) The appointed Chapter members were appointed in 1913 as 
follows: Fr.s Joseph Hanulya, Victor Mirossay, Nicholas Pidhorec 
ky, Peter Poniatisin and Alexander Ulicky. 

c) As titular Chapter members are: Fr.s Michael Jackovics 
Vladimir Dovhovic, Alexius Holozsnyay, Augustin Komporday, Nichol- 
as strutinsky, Panfilion Tarnavsky, Joseph Caplinsky and Nichol- 
as Csopey. Their insignia is: 1. Cross 2. Ring. 3Nabedrenik, 4. 
Sash, 5. Pelerine with violet fringe, 6. Violet kolpak. 

The titular members have the 1-2-3 insignia 

Notice is given to the Chapter members that their installa 
tion will be March 26, Thursday 9. A.M. in the Cathedral church 
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. After the installation there will be 
the first meeting of the Greek Rite Catholic Chapter members at 
818 N. Franklin Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 



Eparchial Vistnik March 15, 

This fact is pleasant of every Uhro-Rusin, that in 1914 the 
Rusin Greek Rite Catholic Church found its place in the Cathol- 
ic Directory, the churches and clergys names were spread out in 
different dioceses, under the Latin rite bishops. At present the 
names are on page 819 in the 1914 Catholic Directory. 

This is a great success for the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins 
in the United States of America. This success is accredited to 
Pope Pius X, respect and thanks to him. 

April 28, 1914 Soter Ortynsky, Bishop 


"RUSIN" June, 1914, p. 2. 

The leaders of the Catholic Church selected a committee of 
70 chief and 1,000 coworkers to write up the history of the Ca- 
tholic Church in the United States of America. 

Looking over the list of names of the chief and co-workers, 
we find that biside Andrew J. Shipman a New York City Councell- 
or at law, who took great interest in the Greek Rite Catholic 
Rusin Church and who wrote in the Catholic Encyclopedia, not one 
of the members of our church is mentioned. This means that our 
Eparchial government did not as yet collect the data, did not ap- 
point one or more Eparchial historians , who would compile the 

It is impossible, that in this history the history of our 
Church would be left out. But, if we ourselves do not care to 
compile it, then the selected Committees will not find a writer 
whos work would serve and be praise worthy to us and for the 
good of our Church. 

We are calling the attention to this matter, the Eparchial - 
government, because we are aware of the weakness and carelesness 


of the concerned data givers. 

Time flies and it will not wait for us . 

In 1963-1964 the attention of the Bishop was called by John 
Slivka, that the New Catholic Encyclopedia will be soon printed. 
It is high time, that the history of the Greek Rite Catholic - 
Church also be included. Is it ??? 


Eparchial Vistnik June 17,1915. 
No VII. p. 7. 
No 995/1915 

The Episcopal Ordinariate wishes to give out a Schematismus 
of all the Greek Rite Catholic Churches and the clergy in the U- 
nite States of America. May this first Schematismus- Directory 
of our Church Province in the United States of America be valuab- 
le, not only as an address book, but a book of historical matter 
of all times, into which every parish is to place the history, 
the organizing of the parish, all the clergy who served the pa- 
rish, dates and who were the cantors in that church. Church so- 
cieties when organized, the number of members, i.e. all this is 
important in the life of a parish. The Ordinariate will place a 
photograph of the acting priest, church and property. The author 
of the history will be the acting priest, such history will be 
an original and valuable history and not a useless book. 

The Episcopal Ordinariate is asking all the clergy, to write 
in his own orthography send in the photographs as soon as possib- 
le . 

Soter Or tynsky, Bishop. 


Vidi : Canon Law Digest 
T.L. Bouscaren, S.J. 
Bruce Pub. Co 1934 


Eparchial Vistnik, May 17,1916 

The first Greek Rite Catholic Rusyn bishop in the United Sta- 
es of America Soter Ortynsky OSBM. Born in 1866 in Ortynec, Gali- 
cia, appointed bishop for the Greek Rite Catholics in the Unit- 
ed States of America March 26,1907, died in Philadelphia, Pa. , Mar 
2*, 19 16. 

Blessed repose and eternal memory. 


No 30/1916 

It is to be known by all the Greek Rite Catholic clergy, that 
the Greek Rite Catholic Exarchate in the United States of Ameri- 
ca will be administered by two Administrators, who are appointed 
by the Apostolic Delegate April 11, 1916 under No 975 c. 

Fr. Peter Poniatisin, 295 Hunterdon Street, Newark, N.J. 

Fr. Gabriel Martyak, P.O.Box 41, Lansford.Pa. 

The clergy to turn in official matters to the Chancery Offi- 
ce 818 N. Franklin Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 

The Exarchates Secretary will remain rFr.M.Gurjansky. 

The faithful are to be notified that in all matters they are 
to turn to their Deans . If the Dean could not solve their problem 
then they are to turn through the Dean to the Chancery Office, 
for the decision of the Administrator. 

Fr. Peter Poniatisin Fr. Gabriel Martyak 

Administrators of the Greek Rite Catholic Exrarchate. 


RUSIN, August 16, 1916. p. 1. 

It is a fact, that August 15,1916, last Sunday a crown with- 
out a cross was placed upon the head of an unworthy, apostate in 
the Russian Cathedral. It is remarkable, that before the Ordina- 
tion of Bishop Alexander Dzubay, a Deacon and a priest was or- 
dained in the Russian Cathedral. According the rubrics ,bef ore 
the ordination the people are asked is he worthy, the response is 
"AKSIOS I But, when the bishop was placing the crown on the head 
of Fr. Alexander Dzubay, then the people were not aked is Fr. A- 
lexander Dzubay worthy. Maybe the bishop was afraid that some- 
one would shout "ANAKSIOS", not worthy. 

The Church Authority will soon announce its judgement and 
will exclude from the Church all those who betrayed their religi- 
on. What is George Kondor doing, the President of the Sojedine- 
nije? What is the Spiritual Advisor Fr. Constantine Rbskbvics do- 
ing ? 

Do they need more facts ? 

Fr. Alexander Dzubay is being ordained a bishop. 

The Moscowite New York City daily "Russkaja Zeml'a ", gives us 
the news, that Saturday August 19,1916 at 4. P.M., Fr. Alexander 
Dzubay will be named a bishop, by an Orthodox Bishop. (Probably - 
in New York City 98th Street) . How did Fr. Alexander become a 
Moscowite, if he does not speak the language ? Now he is called 

"DZJUBAJ" in a few days will become a bishop of Pittsburgh, Pa 
for the Uhro-Rusin people. 

The Orthodox Bishop Eudokim of New York City did not ask, are 
there such people named Uhro-Rusins, he only appointed a General, 
who is to look for his army. 



August 7, 1916 year is a memorable and historical day for the 
American Rus ' . The day of the ordination of the first Uhro-Carpa- 


thian Orthodox Bishop. 

The Archbishop decided to select the oldest friend of the la- 
te Archpriest Alexius Toth, Fr. Alexander Dzubay Vicar General of 
the Uhro-Rusin Uniate Church in North America, the Spiritual Advi- 
sor of the Sojedineni je ,the Greek Catholic Russian Fraternity. 

After uniting with the Orthodox Church, was installed as an 
Archimandrite with a name Stephen, the Archimandrite Stephen Alex 
ander Dzubay with the blessing of the Most Holy Synod of the Rus- 
sian Church was elevated August 7,1916 to a bishop of the Uhro- 
Rusins titled as a Pittsburgh, Pa. , bishop, where a Cathedral was 
to be established for him. 

Bishop Stephen was born in Kalnik, Bereg County in Uhro-Rus ( - 
Hungary 63 years ago. Came to America in 1889, who at once began 
to organize parishes for the Uhro-Carpathian Rusin Uniates :Wilkes 
Barre,Pa. , Hazletcn,Pa. , Scranton, Pa. , Minneapolis , Minn, Osceola 
Mills, Pa., Passaic, N. J. ,Yonkers,N.Y. , Brooklyn, N. Y. ,Punxytowney , 
Pa. ,Duquesne,Pa. , Pittsburgh, Pa, Leisering,Pa. , Trauger, Pa. , John- 
stown, Pa., Homestead, Pa and Braddock,Pa. 

Leaving Wilkes Barre,Pa., settled in a little town Leisering 
Pa., where he served for 24 years, after which years he took up 
Orthodoxy . 

During this 3 year Episcopacy, he took over to Orthodoxy the 
following parishes: Alpha, Pa., Perriapolis , Pa. , Elizabeth, N.J. East 
Chicago, Indiana, Mishawaka, Indiana, Cleveland, 0. Barberton,0. , 
Detroit, Mich. , Monangahale,Pa, Lawrence, Miss . ,Greensburg, Pa. ,Wil- 
pen,Pa, Lakewood , Ohio , Utica,N.Y., Clover Pa., Curtisville,Pa. , 
Witham,W.Vir. Younstown, 0., Witt, 111., Lorrain,0. etc. 


Jubilee Book Anniversary of 150 
years of the Russian Orthodox Church 
in North America. Vol. I. p. 287 Rus- 
skij Viestnik Aug. 20, 1936. 

Fr. Alexander Dzubay came to the conclusion that the Union ( 
with Rome) in the United States of America is beeing an instru- 
ment of Latinization in the Carpatho Rusin Church. He being a 
great defender of the Orthodox Eastern Rite, come to the conclu - 
sion, that the Carpathian Rusin Church could be saved only by an 
absolute renunciation of the "UNIO WITH ROME". In this move he 
momentarily decided July 30, 1916, that he will enter theOrthodox 
Monastery and become a monk. He took the name "Stephen", his f ath • 
ers name, who also was a firm defender of the Eastern Rite in the 
past. July 31, 1916 Stephen was elevated a Archimandrite. This 
decicive move of Fr. Alexander Dzubay had strongly sprinkled the 
spirit among the Carpatho Rusins in the United States of America 
Masses of people began to join Orthodoxy, not only the faithful, 
but even the clergy, as Fr. Theophane Obuskevicz, etc. 

In 1916 Fr. Archimandrite Stephen was proposed to accept the 
post of bishop of the Carpatho Rusin Orthodox Church in the Unit- 
ed States of America. Fr. Archimandrite Stephen was well aware of 
his hard work, he agreed to accept the episcopacy August 6-19, 


1916, with the approval of the Holy Synod was nominated a bishop 
and September 20, 1916, he was ordained in New York,N.Y.. 

Bishop Stephen A. Dzubay soon gained sympathy at the Church 
Synod in Cleveland, Ohio. He refused to be the one to welcome 
Archbishop Eudokim VI . , Alexander Vi . was elected to welcome Eu- 
dokim VI. Who began to discus the Uhro-Rusin department of the 
Uniate Church with Bishop Stephen, who became Stephen VI, to save 
the Carpatho Rusin Church from Latinization. Even now he took 
the risk to himself in this work. 

In 1923 Bishop Stephen VI. called a Synod in New York,N.Y. - 
and secured the status of the Carpathian Rusin Orthodox Eparchy 
in the United States of America by choosing Fr. Adam, whom he 
with Bishop Gorazd of Moravia ordained as bishop. He resigned from 
the episcopacy of Pittsburgh, Pa. , returning to the Union. The Ro- 
mans did not let him free. Bishop Basil Takacs was appointed Bi- 
shop of Pittsburgh, Pa. Bishop Stephen VI died disturbed and in 
confussion in 1933. 



Kalendar Sojedinenije 1925. p. 

May 12, 1924 we recieved news, which was enlarging our since- 
rity in our Eastern Rite Church religion, and at the same time 
showed us the road of the unknown ways of Gods grace , which led 
Fr. Alexander Dzubay, the former apostate of the Greek Rite Cath- 
olic Exarchate of the United States of America. 

Those who were closely acquainted with Fr .Alexander Dzubay we- 
re aware for a long time, that he, in a few months of his episco- 
pacy after his apostacy, as it was expected, did not find peace 
for his conscience, but day by day it disturbed him more and more 
The words of his conscience set a burning desire to return to his 
Mother, from whom he had separated in a time of weakness. He could 
not see in the so known Orthodox Church the faith which he expect- 
ed, nor discipline, without which the church not even the Ortho- 
dox organization exist. . 

All this brought him to this, that through the representative 
of the Holy See in the United States of America, the Apostolic De- 
legate, he asked to be accepted into the Universal Catholic Apos- 
tolic Church. The Holy Father heard the petition of the penitent 
Fr. Alexander Dzubay, accepted him into the bosom of our 1 Church 
under conditions, that he renounce all in this manner: 

" I the undersigned, Bishop of the Orthodox Church in the u- 
nited States of America do hereby proclaim, that I am following 
the voice of my conscience being convinced without influence , or 
force warning, I forever renounce and curse the Russian Schism, in 
to which I fell without a sober consideration for false motives. 

I am sincerely sorry with all my heart, for my error and firm- 
ly unshakably leaving ths schism, admitting that there is only 
one true Church, which is established on the Rock of Peter in - 
which there is the only possible way of my souls salvation, in the 
Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, under the visible Head the Roman 
Pope, the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter. This is my 
sincere decision to which I subject myself in all matters of reli- 
gion and customs . 


I am sincerely sorry that I, with my apastacy caused scandal 
to the faithful Catholics. I solemnly promise to correct as much 
as possible by all my strenght, the scandals and evils that I 
have caused. 

I declare with humility and joy that am accepting all the - 
conditions and the penance placed on me by the Holy Father of - 
the Holy See. By accepting me back to the bosom of the Catholic 
Church, I will pray to God" our Lord, that He through His mercy 
forgive me my error and all my sins, which I committed. 

I solemnly promise and delate that in the future after my re- 
turn to the Catholic Church, I will not function as a bishop in 
any ceremonies. 

New York,N.Y. May 12,1924, 

Stephen Alexander Dzubay 

Witnesess : 

Fr. Peter Poniatisin 
Administrator of the 
Ukrainian Exarchate 


Fr. Constantine Roskovics 
Pastor of St. Nicholas 
Church, Yonkers,N.Y. 
Alexander Pavlak 

Pastor of St. Vladimir 
Church, Elizabeth, N. J..' 

After the signing of the renouncing of Schism,Fr .Alexander 
Dzubay confessed May 15, 1924 in the St, Nicholas of Myra Church 
Yonkers,N.Y. Returned for a retreat to the Monastery of the Friars 
of Atonment, Graymoor, N.Y. 

Rt. Rev. Soter Ortynsky 
Greek Rite Catholic Bishop 
816 North Franklin Street 
Philadelphia , Pa . 

Kalendar Sojedinenija 
1917 p. 207 

Glory be to Christ Jesus ! 

The request of the Uhro-Rusin people is hidden down deep in the 
hearts, from the very beginning of the National meetings of November 
28,1915 at Braddock,Pa. , December 5,1915 Connelsville,Pa. , December 
12,1915, Johns town, Pa. , December 19,1915, Cleveland, O.December 26, 
1915, Scran ton, Pa. Mingo Junction, 0. January .1916, Bridgeport, Conn 
etc. At which meetings the representatives of the majority of Uhro- 
Rusin Greek Rite Catholic Churches were present, thousands of them. 

1. The Uhro-Rusins are requesting for themselves a native Uh- 
ro-Rusin bishop. Another request is, that at the nomination of the 
Uhro-Rusin bishop, the conditions of the Ungvar Union of April 24, 
1649 to be upheld, i .e . the agreement between the Uhro-Rusin people 
and Bishop George Jakusics of Eger, a representative of the Holy 
See, concerning the Eastern Rite and DISCIPLINE to be upheld fir- 

2. We request, that all the decrees, Bullas contrary to the 
above mentioned Ungvar Union, concerning the Uhro-Rusins be recall- 
ed, changed, and the Ungvar Union agreement be spread throughout 
the United States of America, with all its paragraphs, to avoid any 


future misunderstandings, between the Holy See and the Uhro-Rusin 
Greek Rite Catholic people in the United States. 

3. Being that Bishop Soter Ortynsky promised and approved - 
December 13, 1913 the 30 paragraphs of the JohnstownPa. , meeting - 
to help us, to get our own independent bishop. We beg the bishop - 
to fulfill his promise, by signing the petition of the Uhro-Rusin 
people to have a bishop according the Ungvar agreement. After ful- 
filling the promise given to us, the bishop is to work with all - 
his strenght, that the Uhro-Rusin people have their own bishop. 

4. Until the time, when the Uhro-Rusins will have their own 
bishop according the Ungvar Union, we request of Bishop Soter Or- 
tynsky to give over all the Greek Rite Catholic churches , parishes , 
clergy and institutions to the native Vicar General. This request - 
is to be given in writing and approved by the Apostolic Delegate . 
All the Uhro-Rusin people are to be notified about the matter, als 
so the Latin Rite Bishops. Bishop Soter Ortynsky may keep all the 
rights which are given to him by the Church Law. In the future all 
cases are to be given to the Apostolic Delegate and no one else. 

5. The Uhro-Rusin clergy were assured according the Ungvar U- 
nion to elect their own bishop ( which is claimed by Rome) . In ca- 
se the clergy do not wish to live with their rights, the Uhro-Rusin 
people are convinced that success in the Church will arrive only 
if the appointed bishop is practical and experienced person; We pe- 
tition Bishop Soter Ortynsky to present to the Apostolic Delegate - 
the names as candidates for a bishop, from among the Uhro-Rusins, aa 
follows: Fr.s Alexander Dzubay, Dr, Theodosius Vaszocsik and Gab- 
riel Martyak as those in whom the Uhro-Rusin people have the most - 
of confidence. 

6. Concerning the rights of the Uhro-Rusin people, the resolu- 
tions of the Johns town, Pa. , Congress to be brought to life. 

In the above mentioned 6 paragraphs is the request of the Uhro- 
Rusin Greek Rite Catholic people stated plainly as possible. All 
this was done in hope that all our matters, laws will be set. In ca- 
se the wishes and requests of the Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic - 
people in the United States be fulfilled. We ask Bishop Soter Or- 
tynsky besides signing these paragraphs in our presence that the 
same paragraphs be published in the Pastoral Letter to all the cler- 
gy within two weeks, with explanations, which the clergy to explain 
to the people. If this be done we are certain that the Christian - 
peace and brotherly love will return to the Uhro-Rusin people and - 
the Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

We have translated the Uhro-Rusin peoples requests into Latin 
and English language that others could read about the Uhro - Rusin 
peoples requests . These requests are to be given to the Church Au- 
thorities in Latin and the Civil Government in English, that espe- 
cially the Church Authorities approve the autonomy promised by Bi- 
shop Soter Ortynsky, not so long ago. 

Our Uhro-Rusin people are well aware, that they were many a ti- 
times decieved, therefore we are giving hereby the Minutes verbatim 
of the audience of the "NARODNA RADA" Committee and Bishop Soter 
Ortynsky in his Chancery Office February 24, 1916. 



Kalendar Sojedenenija 1917. 
p. 209 

An audience given to the Uhro- Rusin "Narodna Rada Committee" 
by Bishop Soter Ortynsky in the Chancery Office, February 24,1916 
3.00 P.M., in Philadelphia, Pa. 

The following were present: Bishop Soter Ortynsky, Fr. Alexander 
Dzubay, Fr. Valentine Balogh, Nicholas Pachuta, Michael Hanchin ,E- 
mil Sarady, Michael Yuhasz Sr. Joseph Petrovsky, George Kondor , 
John Drimak, Ivan Hritz, Paul Pachuda, George Kolesar, Stephen E- 
per jessy, Michael Luczak, John Luczo, Julius Mikula, George Szenti- 
pal, Michael Felegyi Jr. Michael Bodrog, Z. Barany and John Vrabel. 

Fr Alexander Dzubay, Vicar General greeted the bishop and re- 
marked, that the bishop is to be prudent in his judgement concern- 
ing the Uhro-Rusin peoples request, that may the decision secure a 
lasting peace in the Church. The introduction of the National De- 
fense Committee followed: 

Nicholas Pachuta, President of the "Narodna Rada ", thanked the 
bishop for giving them an audience and introduced the speaker who 
will speak in the name of the Committee, Michael Hanchin. 

Bishop Ortynsky asked them, who had authorized them to have an 
audience with him and speak in the name of the Uhro Rusin people ? 

Nicholas Pachuta replied: The Uhro-Rusin people, who held meet- 
ings in different cities. 

The Bishop was satisfied with the reply. 

Michael Hanchin presented to the Bishop the printed paragraphs 
concerning the requests of the Uhro-Rusin people and the situation 
of the Church. The Bishop was asked, will he accept the paragraphs 
or not in full or he does not want the Uhro-Rusin people.? 

Bishop Soter Ortynsky replied excusing himself, that at pre- 
sent he cannot reply to the given questions, because it is a very 
serious matter which demands time to think over. 

Michael Hanchin insisted that the bishop give a reply, because 
the Uhro-Rusin people are restless and are awaiting the reply. 
The bishop repeated his excuse. 

Fr. Valentine Balogh said, that the bishop cannot be forced to 
give a reply, also remarking, that, he at the request of Emil Sara* 
dy interveened for the "Narodna Rada Committee" to get an audience 
under condition, that they will not overstep the boundries of re- 

Emil Sarady replied: the members of the committee know the 
boundries of intelligence and the necessary respect. 

Nicholas Pachuta requested from the bishop, if the bishop can- 
not give a momentary reply, let him do so in two hours, the commit- 
tee is not willing to wait for two years or more. 

The Bishop asked, that the paragraphs of request be read. 

Michael Hanchin read the paragraphs of request. 

The Bishop replied, that the first and second paragraph does 
not concern him, that is the matter of the Roman Holy See. To the 
3rd paragraph the bishop stated, that he will do everything poss- 
ible, to get and Uhro-Rusin bishop, because he is not benefiting 
any by the Uhro-Rusin people, they are only causing him trouble. 

The 4th paragraph, he cannot accept. 


The 5th paragraph is an "insania"- because there is no such 
law in the Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

Emil Sarady reminded the bishop and Fr. Valentine Balogh that 
they are mistaken, because there is such a law which was secured 
in the Union of Ungvar in 1646-1649. 

Bishop: I will do everything possible that the Uhro-Rusin Bi- 
shop be appointed, but, he will be subjected to me, he will not 
be an independent bishop of the Uhro-Rusins . 

Michael Hanchin: The Uhro-Rusin people will not be satisfied, 
until they will get: their independent bishop, because they donot 
want to have a thing in common with the Ukrainians. 

Bishop: In the Church all the people are equal, there are no 
Ukrainians nor Uhro-Rusins . 

Michael Hanchin: Bishop you have acknowledged the differen- 
ce between the Ukrainians and the Uhro-Rusins , when you signed 
and approved the Johns town, Pa. , Congress, securing autonomy for 
the Uhro-Rusin people and an independent bishop. 

Bishop: The matter of the Uhro-Rusin peoples bishop is finish 

Michael Hanchin: If the bishop is truely praying that they ha- 
ve their own bishop, they will be thankful to him for his efforts 
The bishop is not to bring any decrees with himself which will 
not be beneficial for our Church in the United States . The Bishop 
is to convince the Holy See to appoint a Uhro-Rusin priest from 
the United States of America as a bishop. 

Joseph Petrovsky: Seconded the Hanchin proposal, remaking if 
we will get a bishop from the Old-country, maybe he would be like 
Bishop Stephen Novak, who betrayed the Uhro-Rusin people. 

Bishop: I do not believe that Bishop Stephen Novak of Eperjes 
has done evil willingly, whatever was done, maybe it was done un- 
der duress of the situation of war. But if he done it willingly, 
he deserves to be condemned. 

Emil Sarady: If Bishop Novak did it under duress, force, that 
does not excuse him, that is why people do not have martyrs only 
betrayers . 

Michael Hanchin: I am asking all present, shall we hold on to 
the question of the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, and ask the bishop to ex- 
plain the Bulla to us. 

Bishop: The Bulla does not exist, I never acknowledged it 
therefore the Bulla does not obligate us, because at that time I 
did not have full jurisdiction, for what I am very thankful to 
God. Furthermore, I was always against the Bulla, but ,the Uhro- 
Rusin clergy as Dr. Theodosius Vaszocsik who revealed it before 
many groups of people, that, it is his will that the "EA SEMPER" 
Bulla be upheld, kept. With this I am closing the audience and 
a final reply, I will give in writing in the near future, all a- 
bout the matters involved. 

Emil Sarady: Bishop being that you said during the audience 
openly many times, that the Uhro-Rusin people cannot refer to the 
Union of Ungvar of 1649. Please tell the committee, is the Union 
valid, for the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins in the United States - 
Does the Holy See acknowledge the rights which were assured for 
the Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic people and clergy in the Ung- 
var Union ? 

Bishop: Replied: the Union of Ungvar does not exist for the 


Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic people, and they cannot refer to . 
it, only the ancestors who were Uniates, and you people in the 
United States of America are Catholics. 

Michael Hanchin : Bishop please enlighten us concerning our 
bishop. Is it true, what is in the news, that our bishop will 
be a native of Hungary, who is in residence in the Basilian Fa- 
thers Monastery in Galicia, but at present ,he is in Rome, Fr. 
Kanuscak a Jesuit student and fierce Ukrainian. 

Bishop: Only a fool can say such things. 

With these words the Bishop left the committee without any 
objective answer, they all were angry, decieved and left with- 
out hope 

Nicholas Pachuta Michael Hanchin 

Michael Yuhasz Sr. Joseph Petrovsky 

George Koleszar John Drimak 

Paul Pachuda George Kondor 

Stephen Eperjesi Michael Luczak 

John Luczov Julius Mikula 

George Szentipal Michael Felegyi 

John Vrabel Michael Bodrog 
Ivan Hritz G.2. Bar any 

Emil Sarady 

Recording Secretaries. 


Kalendar Sojedinenija 1917 
Pp 222-225 

Fr. Valentine Gorzo was selected to be an Administrator. The 
blood pressure rises, if we stop and think what happened, that - 
the clergy did not show their manhood, by selecting a person who 
is dispised by the Uhro-Rusin people for an Administrator. But, 
his deeds forced him to resign from the candidacy of an Adminis- 
trator. Fr. Valentine Gorzo resigned ONLY UNDER CONDITION, if the 
clergy would not choose as a candidate Fr. Alexander Dzubay ,who 
was the Vicar General of the late Bishop Soter Ortynsky. This 
would been a proper reason for him to be an Administrator for a 
time being until a new bishop is appointed. Here the clergy be- 
came weak and agreed with Fr. Valentine Gorzos request. they dis- 
regarded the old and worthy priest, loved by the people. He sac- 
rificed himself, became an intermediator between the late Bishop 
Soter Ortynsky and the Uhro-Rusin people, for which he was dis- 
pised by the Canons and the Consultors; Fr. Valentine Gorzo, Jo- 
seph Hanulya, Valentine Balogh and associates. Who for titles 
sold out the Uhro-Rusin people, who wouldnot permit the people - 
to acquire their rights, privileges, which they had, which were 
secured to them by the Church law as patrons. 

The clergy who appeared in good faith at the meeting, had re- 
quested unity among the clergy and the people. They were deciev- 
ed in their waiting, they left for home disappointed, not having 
hope for order in the Church affairs. They were aware that the 
people will not be pleased with the decision of the clergy, who 
has destroyed their beloved Fr. Alexander Dzubay, whom the cler- 
gy not long ago selected for a Vicar General and Spiritual advis- 
or of the "SOJEDINENIJE" , without him being a delegate to the - 


Convention of the Sojedinenije. To forestall any movement among 
the Uhro-Rusin people, they selected as a candidate a devout and 
sincere Uhro-Rusin with full confidence in him, Fr. Gabriel Martyak 
This was the reason for having a meeting April 5-6,1916 of the 
Ecclesiastical National Congress, a week after Bishop Soter Ortyn- 
skys funeral, to unite the clergy and people. At the funeral the. 
majority of the clergy agreed to present at the Congress Fr Gabri- 
el Martyaks name. But, here again Fr. Valentine Gorzo wone, who al- 
ways was against such a movement, i.e., the goal to gain a Uhro 
Rusin Greek Rite Catholic bishop, a citizen of the United States. 
Because he was aware that he will not be among the candidates and 
fearing the loss of his influence in the administration of the 
Greek Rite Catholic Church in the United States. He done every- 
thing possible to get a bishop from Hungary, and not to have an 
understanding with the people, they decided, that the clergy is 
not to attend the Congress. They only sent a representative Fr. 
Alexander Dzubay to make a fool out of him, whom Fr. Valentine Gor- 
zo named "Mob leader", whos place is in mud according his thoughts 
if he appears at the Congress 


Holy Father: 

In the name of the Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholics of the Old- 
Slovanic Rite from Hungary in the United States of America. We are 
coming to your Holiness as to the Head of the Church of salvation, 
humbly begging to correct our Church affairs. 

Our late Bishop Soter Ortynsky, who was a native of Galicia A- 
ustria did not understand the Uhro Rusin people of the United Sta- 
tes of America, did not understand their traditions nor customs. 
He with his political views brought upon himself antipathy of our 
people, with his quick natured temper. Many a times his untactical 
moves, estranged from himself the Uhro-Rusin people in the United 
States of America. 

With his hot temper and antipathy he was trying to carry out 
the order of the Holy See, without informing the Holy see about 
the conditions, circumstances and aims, that these be changed, mo- 
dified according the circumstances. 

These conditions drew the Greek Rite Catholic Church in the U- 
nited States into an internal disorder, rebellion misunderstanding 
on all sides, that in blessed churches blood was flowing, churches 
property found itself in Courts. Some of our faithful wornout with 
the unbearable conditions, left the true Church fell into Schism, 
heresy; all this is going on for the past ten years. 

As the representatives of the Uhro-Rusin parishes in the uni- 
ted States of America and the "SOJEDINENIJE" a Fraternal Organiza- 
tion of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins, seeing the ruination of 
our Church, after three months of serious thinking and preparation 
listening to the voice of our conscience , we met in Braddock, Pa. 
on the Vigil of Annunciation (Julian calendar) to stress the 
Church and National affairs , to humbly pray for a cure from the 
Holy See. 

On the basis of the Congress resolutions, bowing before the 
throne of St. Peter the Apostle, we beg your Holiness: 


1. Appoint a bishop, a priest from among the United States 
of American settlers, citizens of the United States, a native of 
Hungary of the Greek Old Slovanic Rite. 

Our reason for asking an appointment of a United States citi- 
zen, is that he be free of all kind of political inclinations 
that as a bishop, he would always be for the Greek Rite Catholic 
Church and the OLD-SLOVAMIC rite, not to seek favors from Europe- 
an Governments . 

Secondly, because a European person does not know the customs 
and special circumstances of the Mission work in the United Stat- 
es of America. He would not be beneficial only harmful to the mis- 
sion. We are asking for an immigrant from Hungary to be our bishop y 
because three quarters of church institutions belong to the Uhro- 
Rusins and not to the Galician, Ukrainian Ruthenians . In our hum- 
ble petition Holy Father, we are making a remark that the Eastern 
Rite Catholic people in the United States, have great confidence i 
in the following three Fr.s: Alexander Dzubay , widower, former Vi- 
car General of late Bishop Soter Ortynsky, whom the people would - 
like to have as bishop. He is a zealous unselfish Catholic person 
which he proved by excluding 800 schismatics from the Sojedineni- 
je, who were tolorated by his prediceseors , who is one of the old- 
est and most practical priest. Fr. Theodosius Vaszocsik Dr. celi- 
bate , who with his zealous life and great theological knowledge , 
is highly respected and loved by the Uhro-Rusin people. Fr. Gabriel 
Martyak , widower is also a zealous and practical priest and loved 
by our people. 

2 . With great reverence and humility we pray , that the Holy 
Father will introduce for the Uhro-Rusins in the United States of 
America the resolutions of Councils: Lyon, Ferrara and Florence. 
Which stress the laws, privileges and customs of the Eastern Rite 
Catholic Church and on which resolutions was founded the Union of 
Ungvar in 1646-1649, in Hungary. Furthermore, we are begging the 
Holy Father to releave us of the obligations concerning the "EA 
SEMPER" Bulla of June 14,1907, also of the Decree of August 17, 
1914. (Which are opposing our laws and privileges) . 

3. We are requesting from the Holy See that She in her cor- 
respondence with us Uhro-Rusins from Hungary, whos language, cus- 
toms, morals differ from the Galician, Austrian Ruthenians, whos 
name contains a political trend, which is contrary to our views, 
because this name does not cover our Uhro-Rusin peoples national, 
historical, traditional circumstances, it is offensive to us. Let 
the Holy See name us natives of Hungary in the United States of 

For the above given reasons we beg the Holy See, that the new- 
ly appointed bishop in his nomination document, not be named "RU- 
THENIAN". but Greek Rite Catholic Bishop of the Old-Slovanic Rite. 

4. We have about 100 Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic parishes, 
whos property is valued to be about five million dollars -We also 
have an organization the "SOJEDINENIJE" Greek Catholic Rusin Bro- 
therhood with 70,000 members, worth a million dollars. We promise 
if our requests are fulfilled, that we in one ot two years will 
build a seminary, cantors school, cathedral church, and other ins- 

Again we are begging the Vicar of Christ, to hear our petions . 
We remain in the name of the Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic - 

parishes and with the trust of the Braddock , Pa . , Congress. 

Michael S Rusin, President of the Sojedinenije 

Michael Pachuta, President of the Nat. Defense Committee 

Michael Hanchin, Secretary of the Nat. Defense Committee. 



Pastoral Letter of Fi, Gabriel 
Martyak. September 29,1916 

July 25,1916, Pittsburgh, Pa. , As it is known to all, the dread- 
ful history in the Holy Scripture , which happened 1833 years ago 
about Jesus Christ Our Saviour; when one of His disciples, named 
Judas of Iscariot, secretly betrayed Him, by consulting with the 
chief priests, and the elders of the people, who gathered in the 
palace of the High-priest, that by subtility they might put Him 
to death. Judas declared to them, that he was prepared to betray 
Our Lord, but not the people, so says the Holy Scripture, if they 
will give a reward. They appointed him 30 pieces of silver. ' " The 
thought of the unfaithfulness and the betrayal made by one of His 
disciples brought more pain to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, then the 
thorned crown, which was placed on His Head, or all the wounds on 
His sacred body. 

Painfully I admit, that this history was renewed in Fort Pitt 
Hotel, Pittsburgh, Pa. , Where a follower of Judas, a recent discip- 
le of Christ went with his followers to the head officers of the 
enemies of our faith, also to the archpriest to consult with them 
about betraying their own faith and Christ, who taught the true 
faith, which faith, our Lord teaches today through the mouths of 
His servants the priests.. This unfaithful disciple, also recieved 
a reward of silver for his betrayal, which was accompanied by an 
unfortunate bishops crown, which they placed on his head. I do not 
believe that it does not occur to him, when it is placed on his 
head, that with it he presses the thorns deeper into the head of 
Christ; I do not believe, that all the participants of this betra- 
yal can posses peaceful sonscience and soul. 

A person with a beating human heart, would tremble at such a 
step and not only cold bloodedly judge, but would also avoid such 
persons . 

With a painful heart, I have up to this time paciently waited 
an opportune time to make public this betrayal among our Uhro -Ru- 
sin clergy and people, and it is with great joy that I may declare 
that our faithful Uhro-Rusin people in general, also the Rusin 
clergy gathered at Conventions, and with their decisions brought - 
precious balsam for the wounds of Christ. They stood guard and 
comforted Him in His heart aching pains, by declaring that; 

1. They condemn the step of this disciple, who had been so 
faithful to Christ for 37 years, as he had betrayed his Church, His 
Church, his faith, his people for a bishops crown the honor and the 
enlistment in the service of the betrayals. 

2. They condemned all the participants, who partook in the 
betrayal meetings . . 

3. They, condemned the murderers of Christ's servants who try 


to dishonor the clergy and through them Christ and His Church. 

4. The clergy declared publicly that they are of the Greek 
Rite clergy. The Rusin nationality will not be denied; our nati- 
ve country we love and honor. We are and always will be Rusins 
and Greek Rite Catholics, but never Russians. 

When I ask dear Fathers, if you will please read my humble 
Pastoral Letter, to the people, world ,and Christ, please do beg 
the officers of the Sojedinenije to stand guard against the ene- 
mies of our faith, and prevent them from lowering the character - 
and spirit of Christ through the organ, may' the enemies not use - 
the newspaper, as their sword to ruin our faith. 

May the blessing of our Lord Jesus be with all . 

The Lord is with us. 

Lansford,Pa. , September 20,1916. 

Gabrial Martyak 


Pastoral Letter, June 30,1917. 

No 292/1917 

The meeting resolutions were accepted as follows : 

1. The clergy are declaring solemnly and publiclt, that we 
Greek Rite Catholic clergy who immigrated from Hungary, and our 

Uhro-Rusin people belong to the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC 
CHURCH, whos founder is Jesus Christ and His Vicar the Holy Fa- 
ther successor of St. Peter. Belonging to the Eastern Catholic 
Church useing the Old-Slovanic language, we wish to preserve it - 
in its totality. 

2. We are humbly begging the Holy See to appoint for us the 
loyal Uhro-Rusin children as soon as possible a Uhro-Rusin bishop 
from Hungary, with all rights, by which a Greek Rite Catholic Uh- 
ro Rusin bishop is invested. This petition will be presented by 
Fr. Administrator and his three consul tors. 

3. To accomplish our goal, we opened a fund trusted to Fr. 
Administrator ($2,365.00) which fund opened for the clergy pensi- 
on, every priest is obligated to pay $50.00 as initiation and 
yearly $10.00 for this purpose. The pension of $500.00 yearly is 
assured for the clergy, it will be paid from the interest of the 
capital. Until the capital will grow, so that the interest would 
cover the pension, each priest will pay the necessary share to ma- 
ke up the pension amount. 

4. We obligate ourselves to build a cathedral church and 
residence for the Uhro-Rusin bishop.. Each priest is obligated to 

make a collection in his church. 

5 . We are obligating ourselves to establish a very needed 
orphanage, to which each priest will offer during the year $100.00 
( 52 priests signed up) which amount will be $7,400.00 It will be 
the obligation of a priest to induce the faithful and societies - 
to contribute to this fund. It was also decided to establish a 
Cantors School and a parochial school. 

6. To control the orphanage and School Fund the State law 
is to have two trustees. Other matters were also brought up, but 
at present we are concerned with the most important matters. 


I do not doubt that you Rev. Fathers will give yourselves to - 
the Church and people, that you will understand the calling in this 
serious matter. 

By the authority given me I order the following: 

1. That every priest pay $100.00 towards the Orphanage and 
School Fund to Fr. Nicholas Csopey, 695 Main Street, Wilkes Barre, 
Pa., Treasurer. 

2. The pension Fund -is to be sent to Fr. Victor Mirossay, 62 
Ash Street, Yonkers N.Y. The Cathedraticum to the Administrator. - 

Finally Rev. Fathers explain the great need of an orphanage, - 
schools and institutions, that may the people be charitable to sup 
port these institutions . In the month of August every Sunday have 
a special collection 

The Grace of Jesus Christ be with you 

Rev. Gabriel Marty ak 
Uhro-Rusin Administrator. 




No 11, 1921 

Reverend Mother: 

I received your kind letter addressed to me, which I read with 
great joy and satisfaction, if I dare to be open I will present to 
you my thought, that in dealing with the Order of St Basil the 
Great in Philadelphia, Pa. , I see the hand of God in it. We with a 
sincere heart turned to the Administration of the Order of St. Ba- 
sil the Great to help us spread the glory of God. .The Providence 
of God is sending you Rev. Mother to help us to spread the ideas 
of Christ in our churches among our people . 

With this, in the name of the Church Authority, in the name of 
Christ, I am taking you under my spiritual guardianship under my 
authority as Sisters Mary Macrina Hardy and Eufimia confering the 
jurisdiction to conduct a Novitiate of St. Basil the Great Order in 
Cleveland, Ohio. With the statement, that I agree with all Rev. Moth- 
ers instructions. I will accept them as valid ones. I am also ap- 
pointing Fr. Joseph Hanulya to be your Spiritual Advisor, 

I am in full hope that your Reverence with all your might will 
multiply the number of candidates, novices. Your work will serve - 
the glory of God, the good of the Church and people. 

Offering myself to your sincere prayers, I remain the servant 
in Christ 

Peace of God be with you. 

Rev. Gabriel Martyak 
Apostolic Administrator. 




Uniontow,Pa September 30 1924. 

WITH THE everlasting, love for your immortal soul ,1 greet you with 
my First Episcopal words, my beloved Fathers and dear Faithful. 

Love gave me strenght and solidity to leave our beloved native 
land:"PODKARPATSKA RUS ' " with a deciding spirit to cross the Oce- 
an, to fulfill the order of Christ, promptly "Go into the world and 
preach the Gospel to all nations. ..Mk. 71-16. 

The living spirit in Christ Church always was, is and will be: 
LOVE. This love moved the heart of St. Peters successor, the Holy 
Roman See. With kind lovo towards our Eastern Greek Catholic Rite, 
and towards the salvation of the treasured souls of our faithful 
who are living in the United States of North America, he consented 
and appointed ne bishop. Because love and vison became real 
through obedience. I humbly bowed my head before His Holiness Po- 
pe Pius XI. and took upon my shoulders the gentle burden of a Bi- 
shops obligation. 

The obligation of a bishop is not an easy task, against t ^ ie 
three stubern fierce enemies of the salvation of souls, i.e. against 
temptations, to save the souls of thousands and thousands of peop- 

Even though my problems appear to over power the strenght of 
man, I am not dejected in spirit. I am placing all my hope in the 
grace of Almighty God and in the living faith of my clergy and 
faithful . 

I trust in God, that the fountain of grace, the Holy Spirit - 
will not leave me, in such a great and important work, without a 
special help. At the same time I hope and trust in the cooperation 
of my Christ loving clergy and faithful. 

My dearly beloved Brothers and Sons in Christ: 
You waited for a long time, for 8 years expecting and petitioning 
for a bishop of your own blood and flesh, your nationality. Your 
request is fulfilled. Your Bishop is among you, sent by the Holy 
Father of Rome. A bishop not a stranger in spirit and blood , a 
sincere son of "PODKARPATSKA-RUS ' " , who with one soul one heart - 
is with his people, who are overwhelmed with the spirit of of his 
blood, to lift up the people in religion, morality, culture and 
nationality to the highest degree to the most educated people. 

Do you wish to make success in a short time ? Follow me, work 
with me. As my message here in the land of free America, which com- 
es to life in the union of good deeds, love and obedience. Will be 
a fruitful success on your part only through your good deeded love 
and obedience can be accomplished. 

Love and obedience are the vivifying esential elements . of - 
building the Kingdom of God in the Church of Christ upon earth . 

Without deeds of love, faith is dead and without the deeds of 
obedience it is not fertile. 

God requests from us a sincere and blessed supernatural love . 
With such a love you are to love your Church authority, your appo. 
inted ones as the Holy Scripture says : "They care for your souls". 
Love your religion, faith and do not permit the dishonest sales- 


man to mislead you away from your forefathers heritage. Love our 
beautiful Eastern Rite, do not change it, or leave it light mind- 
edly through your weakness or some earthly reasons . Love your peop- 
le, your beautiful language. Do not be ashamed of it, do not deny 
it before strangers, but love one another with real love, because 
we all are brothers, all the commandments of Christ unite us: "This 
command I give you, that you love one another". J. XV. 17. For he 
that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law" Rom. XIII, 8. 

Dearly beloved Faithful, the virtue of love is not less impor- 
tant, than the love virtue of obedience, because these two virtues 
are the golden characters of the New Testament. Mankind through - 
his disobedience lost his blessedness and through the obedience of 
Christ was saved. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were 
made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made 
just. Rom. V. 19. Christ saved us with His humility, being obedient 
unto death on the cross" (Phil. II. 8) He with His. divine OBEDIENCE 
TAUGHT US TO OBEY: "not my will, but Thy will be done. " (L. 22, 42) .- 
With His divine teaching and death, has proven His obedience. 

Our salvation depends upon us, if we follow Christ, because 0- 
bedience is an Angelical act. Disobedience is a diabolical act. 

Where there is no obedience, there begins the misunderstanding 
dissention, heresy, sin. 

In obedience is great knowledge, firm strenght and defying peace. 

The spirit of this world is, the spirit of disobedience and 
pride. The spirit of Christ is kindness and childish meekness .With- 
out obedience there is no order, no salvation, no strenght in buil- 
ding up and spreading ideas, only choas , hatred, sin, evil and di- 
spear . 

I am convinced Rev. Fathers and dear Faithful, that no one of 
you wish to see such a dark picture in the future. For such a rea- 
son I dare to ask you in my first greetings, that you show your lo- 
ve and obedience to me, because with the virtue you can secure 
your aouls salvation. 

I am sending my episcopal blessing to the clergy and all of - 
my faithful. 

In firm hope that on the foundation on the will of our Saviour 
and the spirit of the Holy Mother church, with cooperating work it 
will be possible for us to build up our Greek Rite Catholic Eparchy, 
in the free land of the United States of America, for the glory of 
Almighty God and the salvation of all jur dear faithful. 

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, the Father 
and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. 

Your humble Father in Christ. 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 
Uniontown , Pa . September 30,1924. 



Vidi : Canon Law . Text and Commentary 
T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J Bruce Pub. 
Co. Milwaukee Vol. I. pp 6-16.(1934). 
Pastoral Letter of Bishop Basil Takacs 



Vidi: Cathechism By; Julius D.Grigassy 
p. 237. 

By the Decree "CUM DATA FUERIT", given by the Sacred Oriental 
Congregation on March 1,1929, the spiritual administration of the 
Greek-Ruthenian Ordinariates in the United States of America was 
made secure for a period of TEN YEARS , Since all things consider- 
ed, THIS TEN YEAR PERIOD OF TRIAL has proven that such a Decree 
was highly beneficial to the religious life of the faithful in 
that country, this Sacred Congregation, Acknowledging the wish 
of the Most Rev. Amleto G. Cicognani, Titular Archbishop of Loadi- 
cea in Phrygia and Apostolic Delegate to the United States of A- 
merica, and of the Most Rev. Basil Takacs, titular Bishop of Zela 
and Apostolic Exarch for the Ruthenians from Subcarpathia, and al- 
so of the Most Rev. Constantine Bohacevsky, titular Bishop of Ami- 
sus and Apostolic Exarch for the Ruthenians from Galicia, has de- 
cided to confirm this decree for ANOTHER TEN YEARS , with few chang 
es or additions that follow. : 

Art. 15. All rectors of the Greek Ruthenian parishes and 
missions in the United States are appointed through a decree of 
their Ordinary of the Greek Ruthenian rite , excluding any inter- 
vention of the faithful. They are removable ( at the will of the 
Ordinaries of the Greek Ruthenian rite. They may not, however, be 
removed without grave and just reasons) . 

Art. 39 Marriages, both between Greek Ruthenians and be- 
tween the faithful of different rites, must be contracted with 
the observance of the form prescribed in the Decree "NE TEMERE" 
and therefore are to be blessed in the rite of the woman, (by the 
woman's pastor) . But if a just reason the marriage may be celeb- 
rated in the rite of the man according to the judgement and with 
the consent of the local Ordinary. 

The above, having been proposed to His Holiness, Pope Pius XII 
by the Undersigned Card. Secretary in an audience granted on the 
23rd day of November, 1940, was approved and ratified, and at the 
same time ordered to become public law through a Decree of the S . 
Oriental Congregation . 

Notwhitstanding anything to the contrary. 

Given at Rome , from the Sacred Oriental Congregation , on the 
23rd day of November 1940 

E. Card. Tisserant, Secretary 

I. Cesarini, Assessor. 



The faculty permitting the change to another rite is reserved 
to the Holy See alone. 

In order that the discipline concerning the adherence of faith 
ful to their original rite may be more firmly kept, His Holiness, 
Pope Pius XII. in an audience granted the 23rd of November 1949 on 
the proposal of the undersigned Card. Secretary graciously dec- 
reed that the faculty of transferring from one rite to another be 
granted only by the Holy See. 

The faculty, therefore, that has been granted to ApostolicNun- 
cio's and delegates by the Decree "NEMINI LI CERE" of December 6 
1928. (Cfr. A.A.S. 1928, p. 416) cases,- and the judgement conserning 
everything that refers to the change from one rite to another, whe- 
ther it is a matter of clerics or fathful, is now directly reserv- 
ed to the Sacred Congregation 

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary. 

Given at Rome, from the Sacred Oriental Congregation, on the 
23rd day of November 1940 

Card. Tisserant, Secretary 

I. Cesarini , Assessor 



Art. 28 The faithful to support the Greek Ruthenian Rite are 
bound to attend and liberarly to support their own churches, and - 
to observe the prescriptions of their own rite. But in districts 
where there is no churches nor priests of their rites and where 
owing to the distance , they cannot go to their own church without 
grave inconvenience, they must, in order to fulfill the precepts 
of the Church, hear Mass in a Catholic church of the other rite,, 
and receive the sacraments from the priest of the other rite . 

Art. 29 Attending on the part of the Greek Ruthenians, even 
though it be continous, at the churches of the Latin rite does 
not effect a change of rite. As regards transferring from one rite 
to another, the norms given by the Sacred Congregation by the 
decree "QUO FIRMITER" November 23 1940 

Art. 30. Priests of the Latin rite are not allowed to indu- 
ce any member of the Greek Ruthenian rite to transfer to the Latin 
rite contrary to, or aside from the canonical provisions which go- 
vern changes of rite. 

Art. 31 The faithful of the Latin rite, even if a priest - 
of their own rite is available can validly and licitly confess 
their sins and receive sacramental absolution from a priest of - 
the Greek Ruthenian rite approved by his Ordinary. So too the 
faithful of the Greek Ruthenian rite can confess their sins to a 
priest of the Latin rite who is approved by the bishop . 

Art. 32. All the faithful of whatsoever rite may, for devo- 
tion receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist, consecrated according 
toany rite; and besides, where necessity urges and there is no 
priest of the other Rite available, a Greek Ruthenian priest may 
administer the Eucharist which has been consecrated from unleaven- 
ed bread, and conversely, a priest of Latin rite may administer that 


which has been consacrated from leavened bread, but each must fol- 
low his own rite in administering it. 

Art 33 Any member of any Oriental rite validly and licitly 
fulfills the precept of Paschal Communon even if he communicate - 
in a rite other than his own. It is desirable, however, that the 
faithful fulfill the precept of the Paschal Communion each in his 
own rite, and in his own parish church; and those who may have 
fulfilled it in another parish should take care to inform their 
own pastor of the fact that they have fulfilled it. 

Art. 34 Holy Viaticum should be received by the dying in - 
their own rite and from the hands of their own pastor; but in ca- 
se of necessity it is allowed to receive it from any priest; the 
priest, however, must administer it according to his own rite. 

Art 35 The celebration of funerals and receptions of emolum 
ments in families cf mixed rite, belong to the pastor of that ri- 
te to which the deceased belonged. 

Art. 36 To prevent grave inconvenience which might accure 
to Ruthenians, they are given permission to observe feasts and 
fasts according to the custom of the place in which they are stay- 
ing; but such observance does not produce a change of rite. As re- 
gards the hearing of Mass on feasts which fall on the same day in 
both rites, they are bound, in order to fulfill the ecclesiasti- 
cal precept, to assist at the sacred liturgy in a church of their 
•rite, if there is one in the place 

Art. 37 Association of the faithful of the Greek Ruthenian - 
rite shall be under vigilance of the Ordinaries, and these shall 
name the priest who is to have charge of the said associations, 
lest any abuse creep into them in regard to faith morals, or dis- 
ciple. Hence it is praiseworthy on the part of the faithful to 
join associations which have been formed, or at least approved , 
by ecclesiastical authority. They should, however be on their 
guard against associations which are secret, condemned, seditious, 
suspect, or which seek to elude the supervision of lawful eccle- 
siastical authority. 

Likewise Catholic newspapers , magazines and periodicals 
under the supervision of the Ordinary; and without his permission 
priests should neither write in them nor manage them. 


Art. 38 Marriages between Catholics of the Greek Ruthenian 
and of the Latin rite are not forbidden; but to prevent inconve- 
niences which usually arise in families from the diversity of ri- 
tes, it is provided that the wife may at the time of the marriage 
or during its continuance pass over to the rite of her husband . 
But, after the marriage has been dissolved, she is free to return 
to her own original rite . 

Art 39 Marriages, both between Greek Ruthenian and be- 
tween the faithful of different rites, must be contracted with 
the observance of the form prescribed by the Decree "NE TEMERE" 
and therefore are to be blessed in the rite of the woman, by the 
woman pastor. But, if a just reason is present, the marriage 
may be celebrated in the rite of the man, according to the judge- 
ment and with the consent of the local Ordinary . (Per Decretum Nov. 
23 194- - p. 239) . 


Art. 40 Matrimonial Dispensations in marriages of mixed - 
rite must, when they are needed, be asked of and granted by the 
Bishop of the prospective bride . 

Art. 41 Persons born in the United States of North Ameri- 
ca of parents of different rites, are to be baptized in the rite 
of the father; for the children of both sexes must absolutely - 
follow the rite of the father. 

Art. 42 Baptism received in another rite on account of - 
grave necessity, that is when the child was near death, or was 
born in a place where at the time there was no pastor whom the 
father could consider his pastor, does not produce a change of 
rite; and the priest who performed the baptism must send the re- 
cord thereof to the proper pastor . 

Art 43 Children belong to the jurisdiction of that pastor 
to whose rite their father belong, except those born illegimitte- 
ly, who follow the rite of the mother. 



Leaf let. Bridgeport, Conn 

St Johns Parish. November 16,1930 

An open letter to all Carpatho Uhro-Rusin Greek Rite Catholic 
parishes, Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods of the Greek Rite Catholic 
Rusin Sojedinenije and Sobranije. 

September 18, 1929 the Greek Rite Catholic Congregation of - 
St. John the Baptist, Bridgeport, Conn. , sent a following letter 
to Bishop Basil Takacs, to the Editor of the Amerikansky Russky 
Viestnik, and to the Editor of the Prosvita,Sobrani je: 

"The Holy Father issued a Decree, which concerns the Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Church in the United States of America. One of the 
paragraphs of this Decree states : THAT FOR THE FOLLOWING TEN YEAR 
FROM THE OLD COUNTRY. Consequently if our seminarians who are 
studying in the Old-country Eparchys , after the complition of the- 
ir studies get married, they cannot return to the United States - 
of America, the land of their birth and function as priests. Con- 
sequently the Greek Rite Catholic Church of St. John the Baptist 
in Bridgeport, , Conn. , at a special meeting unanimously resolved 
to protest against the violation of law and privileges, which we- 
re secured by our forefathers in the Union of Ungvar with the Ho- 
ly See. The parish officers were trusted to send a protest to 
Bishop Basil Takacs and to publish the protest in our newspapers, 
inviting all the parishes to do so on their meeting, bring forth 
their protest against this paragrapg of the Decree and send it 
to Bishop Takacs and our newspapers for publicatic ,to proven the 
full and solemn understanding in this very important matter 
which concerns us. 

To this OPEN LETTER we did not receive a reply. Later on all 
the Bridgeport Brotherhood and Sisterhood of the Sojedinenije 
turned to the Presidents of the major and Sokol departments , re= 
questing the publishing of the OPEN LETTER. Nothing has been done 
in this matter. Before the Annual Meeting of the Board of Trus- 
tees of the Sojedinenije, we sent again a letter concerning the 
matter, requesting the publication of the "OPEN LETTER . The So- 


jedinenije Board of Trustees replied, if other nespapers, especial 
ly the "VOZD- LEADER" , the official organ of the "RUSIN ELITE SOCI- 
ETY", would publish the article once more concerning CELIBACY, the 
hand of the Editor of the Amerikansky Russky Viestnik and Sokol 
would be free, and the requested letter could be published. Many 
months passed and still nothing was done. 

Concerning this CELIBACY matter, the officers of the So jedine- 
nije lodges in Bridgeport, Conn. , decided to send out a Circular - 
Letter to all Greek Rite Catholic Parishes, all lodges of So jedi- 
nenije and Sobranije. That all the parish Societies decide at the ■ 
ir meetings about celibacy question. Send their resolutions to Bi- 
shop Basil Takacs on the enclosed declaration. 

In hope that in this grave question, you will stand by us - 
protecting our laws of our Greek rite. 

Respectfully yours 
St. John the Baptist Lodge # 126 Sojedinenije 

Stephen Varhol,Pres. Paul Stefura, Secretary 
St. Nicholas Lodge # 522 Sojedinenije 

Andrew Zaleta, Pres. Peter Krajnak, Sec. 
St. Anns Lodge # 270 Sojedinenije 

Zuzanna Ihnat, Pres. Zuzanna Zahorsky Sec. 
Protection of the Bl. V.Mary Lodge # 614 Sojedinenije 

Susie B Dirgo, Pres. Mary Lukacs ,Sec. 
SS. Cyril and Methodius Lodge # 3 Sokol Sojedinenije 

Joseph Lesko, Pres. Michael Mihalko Sec. 
Nativity of the Bl. V.Mary Lodge # 11 Sokol Sojedinenije 

Anna Kasper, Pres. Julia Vojnik, Sere/ 
SS. Peter and Paul Lodge # 4. Junior Dep. Sojedinenije 

George Demcak, Guardian, Michael Skirkanich ,Serc. 
Assuption of the Bl. V.Mary Lodge # 5 Juniour Dep. Sojedinenije 

John Bobko, Guardian John Timchak. Sec. 


"LEADER- VOZD" Cleveland, Ohio 
Vol II. 1930 p. 4. 

The Executive Committee of the RUSIN ELITE SOCIETY at its - 
meeting held November 27, 1930 in Akron, Ohio, acknowledged the - 
report made by the Supreme President, That our Bishop and Supre- 
me Protector of the Society withdrew his protectorate over the 
Society and suspended the Supreme Spiritual Advisor, the Editor 
and Business Manager from their respective offices , for the rea- 
son that in the latest issue of the RUSIN ELITE SOCIETY official 
organ, the "LEADER-VOZD" , article appeared written in defense of 
our Eastern rite and criticizing the disciplinary rules objec- 
tively, of the Church Authoriries which rules are injurious - to 
our traditional Eastern rite and privileges. 

When in spite of repeated requests from the Supreme President 
our Bishop refused to change his decision and denied the Societys 
petition to appoint a new Spiritual Advisor for the religious di- 
rection of our society, the Executive Committee acknowledged - 


this decision of the Rt.Rev. Bishop and on acount of a new situa- 
tion thus created and due to the withdrawal of all ecclesiastical 
support, the Executive Committee adopted the following resoluti- 

1. The RUSIN ELITE SOCIETY as in the past, so in the futu- 
re will always work for the high ideals stated in its charter. 

2. In its management and administration, the RUSIN ELITE SO- 
CIETY will strictly adhere to the regulations of the Catholic 
Church of the Eastern rite. 

3 . Whenever and wherever the occasion demands , the Rusin E- 
lite Society and its official magazine will stand in the service 
of our ancient Eastern Rite and uphold it in its entity 

4. In national, political questions the Rusin Elite Society 
shall be adherent to no political party. In its activities the 
society will always strive and work for the welfare of our Rusin 
people and for their cultural and literary uplifting as a collec- 
tive homogeneous whole. . 

5. The Executive Committee expresses it most sincere 
thanks to Rev.Fr. George Hric, former editor and to Rev. Fr. Steph- 
en Gulyassy, former Busines Manager for their valuable and un- 
selfish work, untierligly in the service of the high ideals of 
the Rusin Elite Society and carried the cultural advancement of 
our Rusin people in their hearts. These two Rev. Fathers with the- 
ir zeal, for the youth and their effort towards developing the re- 
ligious and national conciousness in the hearts of our young peop- 
le shall always shine as a torch before the members of the Rusin 
Elite Society pointing out the road for them. 

Because of this new situation, the Executive Committee empo- 
wered the Supreme President to appoint a By-Laws Committee ,whos 
duty it shal be to restudy our constitution and present before 
the Second Convention of the Rusin Elite Society to be held in 
February 1931 any changes this committee considers adviseable and 
necessary in conformity with the above adopted resolutions. 

That our Society may carry on its task in the future more ef- 
ficiently in harmony with the above adopted resolutions , the By- 
Laws Committee is authorized in their work of studying the Consti- 
tution, to inquire into the opinions of our Rusin American Natio- 
nal leaders, who can give their views to them in word or writing, 
having been invited by the Supreme President to do so 

Executive Committee of the 


Pamphlet. One of the 90 0/0 

In the issue of the A.R.Viestnik of October 16,1930 a short - 
announcement appeared "RESIGNATION" a trust worthy source inform- 
ed us that Bishop Basil Takacs resigned from the Protectorship of 
the "RUSIN ELITE SOCIETY" at the same time the Spiritual Advisor, 
Manager, also the Editor of the official organ of the Society re- 
signed from their office. 

How characteristic it is : 

1. The A.R.Viestnik did not take the trouble to advise its 
readers as to the reason of the resignation, whereas it was well 
aware of it . 


2. The A.R.Viestnik took it very lightely, that all managers 
being aware of their suspension. 

3. That A.R.Viestnik which a year ago, months ago has inven- 
ted all kind of evil about the "Rusin Elite Society" to destroy it 
at present it is not rejoycing over its blow, which fell upon this 

4. Being that the Amerikansky Viestnik is aware, that the - 
resignation came about on account an article in the "Leader- Vo2d", 
against celibacy, it did not write about it. This means that the 
declaration of the Sojedinenije Board of Trustees will do every- 
thing possible, against celibacy, is only a bluff. 

It is necessary to make a note for the history , that this 
change came about September 26,1930, when an article in the "LEAD- 
ER- V02d" appeared under the title "MARRIAGE OF OUR CLERGY" in No 
8, and previous articles. 

The recall of Patronage, Spiritual Advisor, Manager and force- 
ful disclosier of the author of the article, all the clergy were 
suspended from their office and forbidden to write about such top- 

I am not going to criticize the verbal order (that will be do- 
ne by history, which cannot be held back) . I will live with the 
irrevocable appealing law, with the better informed. I am doing 
this without hatred (sine ira) , odio et studio partim, but wholy 
historically, judicaly, because I am fully aware that a greater - 
understanding is necessary. 

The stumbling block is "CELIBACY"; will our future Eastern Ri- 
te Catholic clergy be permitted to marry before ordination. Will 
it be possible for our bishop to ordain married men ? 

I am not going to decribe the reasons , motives nor mood of 
the introduction of "CELIBACY" in the Latin rite Church. Maybe 
there will be no need to explain it, but I will state: that only 
in the Latin Rite Church it is a law, that after ordination not 
permitted to marry, nor to praise the marital life over virgini- 
ty. History testifies that at the Council of Trent it was the de- 
bate over celibacy, was purposely avoided. With this act the de- 
rect prohibition of marriage of seminarians before ordination was 
not brought forth. 

I will state directly the source of forbidding the Eastern - 
Churches Law. The document of the Union, according its introduc- 
tion it contains : 

We according the proscribed form laudly said the "PROFESSION OF 
FAITH ", i.e. that we believe and particularly, what our Holy 
Roman Mother Church believes and what the Church orders to believe 
Pope Innocent X. the Pastor of the Universal Church of Christ 
we accept Him and His successors, wish to introduce with the ad- 
ded conditions : 

1. To be free to use the Greek Rite Churches Rite freely 

2. To have a bishop elected by us and approved by the Aposto- 
lic See. 

3 . To use freely the Church Laws . 

The Union was in Ungvar April 24, 1649 on St. George day and it 
was written and proposed for a bishop the elected Peter Partheni- 
us, with the agreement of the Latin Rite Bishop of Eger, Eszter- 
gom and Vacz January 15, 1652 and was sent to Rome (Vidi : J. Basi- 
lovits. P. I.C. XVI 84,5,6.). 


To this from Rome came a reply , among others : According the 
presentation of this matter to the Congregation and the general - 
inquisition, after a serious deliberation, hearing the thought - 
of the Cardinals, and on the recommendation .... With this lett- 
er with the Apostolic Authority we are permitting and ordering 
not to oppose this .... having no opposition to the order (Vidi : J. 
Bazilovits p. IV C. XII 69 70). 

The Union of the Galician Rusins had the same conditions June 
12, 1595, which was approved in February 23, 1696 by Pope Clement 
VIII in Bulla "Magnus Dominus Laudabilis" and in Bulla "Docet Ro- 
manum Pontificum" describing the rights of Eastern bishops. 

There is no douht, that the composers of the above presenta- 
tion of Union undoubted meant by the word " RITE, OBRJAD" meant 
all that belong to the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. No doubt 
that the word " libertates", free us of law, especially the right 
of marriage of seminarians, right of the clergy to Confirm. 

There is no doubt that Rome was well aware, that did the word 
"rite" and "law" mean. About 300 years old agreement testifies 
the full understanding of both parties. 

The complition of such a Union that it is worthy to note 
that it happened at the time of the Trident Council. After the 
500 year struggle the Western Church introduced celibacy in the - 
Latin rite for its clergy. No question about it, that the reasons 
were important, that the Pope and the Cardinals with a mature de- 
liberation, approved the conditions of the East. 


Pastoral Letter May 18, 1931, No 66-1931 

It was noticed for a long time that the spirit in our Church 
and the feeling of the discipline, which in the past progressed so 
wonderfully among us, it is failing and the evil results of these 
circumstances, here and there are noticed. This fact did not pass 
the attention of the Holy Apostolic See. For this reason I feel it 
to be my obligation as a bishop, to call the clergy's attention 
in this matter in our Eparchy . 

The promulgation of the Decree "CUM DATA FUERIT", among one 
part of the clergy caused dissatisfaction concerning this situation. 
The Holy Apostolic See as in the past and at present continually 
demanded that the active clergy in the United States of America 
be "CELIBATS". A part of the clergy felt offended and opposed it 
they began to introduce a struggle, placing fear in the people, 
with their most evil thoughts. 

This forced the Holy Congragation of the Eastern Churches to 
speak up against such an unreal movement and finally to state the 
meaning of the Highest Church Authority in this matter. I AM MAK- 
ING it my obligation to bring to the attention of the clergy, the 
meaning of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches in its 
fulness, verbatim: 

No 572-1930 March 12,1931 


Your Excellency Msgr. Basil Takacs 
Ordinary of the Podkarpathian Rusins 
Homestead, Pa 

Your Excellency : 

This Congregation for some time was forced to consider with - 
sorrow that the Podkarpathian Rusin clergy in the United States - 
of America is spreading agitation, in magazines and newspapers a- 
busing the Holy See in Church matters of celibacy. 

This truthfully is unjust and unintelligible, because one or- 
der which was sent from the Holy See concerning celibacy for the 
clergy of both Rusin Ordinariates in the United States of America 
as contained in the 12th paragraph of the "CUM DATA FUERIT" March 
1, 1929 that the clergy be celibates. 

This order in the paragraph 12 is not new. It is only a repi- 
tition of the Congregation Propaganda de Fide for the Eastern ri- 
te. The Congregation by its Encyclical Letter of October 1,1890 - 
instituted celibacy in the United States of America. (Coll. P. F. 
Vol. XI ,p. 357, also in April 12, 1894 Coll. P. F. Vol. XI p. 303) 
was also approved by a Decree "Romana Ecclesia" May 1. 1897 < in 
which the Latin Ordinaries are to take into their care the faith- 
ful of the Rusin rite, i.e. their guardianship. (Coll. P.F. Vol. 
XI ,p. 357) . 

This presentation is suffice to prove, the false statement of 
those who proclaim that the Holy See wishes to ignore the customs 
traditions and privileges of the Rusin clergy forcing upon them\ 
the discipline of the Latin Church. It may happen that some may 
be fooled, for the sake of their souls and shame for the name o- 
bedient clergy towards the Highest Authority. It would be praise- 
worthy if Your Excellency would enlighten the minds of your cler- 
gy with the presented facts. 

With High Esteem 

L. Card. Sincero, Secretary 
A.G. Cicognani, Assessor 

As it is noticed from the above given order, the Apostolic 
See is raising its reminding words against the accusation on the 
newspaper and pamphlets, because in those the principle is to dis- 
turb the souls and serve disorder. Besides this, this movement, 
wishes to restrict the tripple power of the Apostolic See.(Potes- 
tas docendi, ministrandi, et regendi) , the ability to teach, serve 
and rule the practice which the Holy Apostolic See is continueing 
from the beginnin-. 

Dear Rev. Fathers, you are aware AS I am, that the Church can 
give orders for the MISSION TERRITORY, which is proven beneficial 
to the Church throughout centuries. Here it gives concession and 
there it leaves pressure, as the condition requires it. The same 
happen to us Rusins in the United States of America. All our laws 
and privileges of the Greek Rite Catholic Church are left to us, 
only the law of MARRIAGE OF CLERGY was taken away. Which is a 
question of discipline and does not concern religion or rite , as 
aroused the people to fear. The Holy Apostolic See already in Oc- 
tober 1, 1890 brought this decision. The 41 years old transgres- 
sion brought about this order, being aware of the spiritual salva- 


tion of the faithful yielded, and has not shown their rude decisi- 
on; it permitted the married clergy to function in the vinyard of 
Christ, but it never renounced its principle. Many a times, it re- 
marked that they intend to have celibacy in the United States of 
America. The clergy of our Eparchy are well aware of that. 

Could any of the clergy honestly accuse the Holy See for per- 
mitting the 41 year old matter to stat, that we befriend ourselves 
with this fact, preparing the people for this. It is not true that 
this great permission burdens us in this matter, for our person- 
al or family circumstances for these consequences we dare to accu- 
se others. 

When the Latin rite Missionaries some hundred years ago receiv- 
ed permission to go to America and preach the teaching of Christ 
Jesus, they thought, that the Holy See will not make any changes, 
but will keep the European system in America also. Rome decided o- 
therwise. Did not permit Chapters, Diocesan clergy and Abbat title, 
besides the bishops title, nor other appointments were given. The 
clergy were satisfied and their hard work did not weaken, because 
it stood on the hight of its calling. A beautiful example is to - 
onserve which is our obligation. 

This method, when the disciplinary question is concerning the 
clergy exclusively and we are trying to provoke the peoples will 
into it, for this we cannot condemn them. This method is only li- 
miting the laws of the Holy Mother Church dulling the law and a 
authority, of the earthly Vicar of Christ, which is a very grave 
deed in the Church, belittleing the Highest Authority which Christ 
Himself instituted in the person of St. Peter and His successors . 
The power, order of this highest dignity to subject it to the will 
of the people is unheard audacity, boldness and evil which would 
bring fear to the good laity. Not acknowledgeing the highest digni- 
ty meaning destroying the establishment. Such matters the Church 
never permitted, nor will it permit it at present. This would mean 
the victory for Satan. 

Rev. Fathers please judge this fundamental deed, then you will 
be aware how we separated ourselves from the spirit of the Church, 
and how great wounds we made on the body of the Church discipline. 
This cannot continue, because it could bring for us death. Let us 
consider the danger of our popularity which rests exclusively on 
mankinds suffering. Today is Hossanna and tomorrow could be cruci- 
fy him. If we wish that the highest dignity fail and clothe the - 
people with it .Who will secure our rights. The zeal of the people 
will sweep us with its zeal, which cannot humble, nor will not know 
the limit of laws, whos will we be. 

Our Holy Mother Church from the very beginning abolished the 
"Potestatem magisterii minister ii et regiminis " , the Church did not 
renounce that, by any means and for us clergy did not leave any- 
thing, but to place ourselves to the fundamental canonical obedien- 
ce. This is the greatest virtue of the clergy and the best armour 
of Christs Church. With this the Church ruled the people for over - 
1900 years. With this the Catholic clergy deserves the name "acies 
bene ordinata" that is why honor respect is given to us in the who- 
le world. Let us travel on this road. It is our obligation to give 
ourselves to total obedience, with that we will conquer our will , 
which does not want to limit itself; we will conquer judgement 
which does not wish to bow before the truthful meaning of others . 


We are to feel with the heart of the Holy Mother Church. Think 
with her mind, because to obey is a sacrifice, which we can off- 
er to God, which is the shortest road to perfection. We will be 
good Catholics, not only then when we can live with the benefits 
of the Church, but it is necessary for us to prove, that we will 
remain the same, even then when we will have to bring a sacrifice. 

Rev. Fathers the Church is eternal "Roma aeterna",it did not 
shed tears at the fall of the Roman Empire, it did not feel that 
it should share its fate, but believed in the promise of Christ, 
it worked, conquered people and again built up Christianity on - 
RUINS OF THE Roman Empire and became victorious in all times. This 
victory was secured by our Saviour, we will not be bold to say 
that the Catholic Church without us will not exist, that we are 
indispensible in the program of the Catholic Church. That on that 
foundation we can dictate, refer to contracts which secure our - 
privileges, this would only testify about our wrong attitude, be- 
cause the 300 year old Union should of been made thighter with - 
the true Church of Christ and to inject into our heats the practi- 
cal life, the request of Church Authority and the feeling of obe- 
dience, as we ourselves would like to show in every case if it 
concerns un justice. If our fear is this matter is just and serio- 
us to recall this, which is the fault of our ancestors. If we ha- 
ve only a little fealing of or dignity, we should deny it, be- 
cause it would mean destruction of law and our existance. 

This is the honost truth Rev. Fathers, that in the present cir- 
cumstances not only the Holy Apostolic See, but the whole Catholic 
and Protestant world here in the United States and in the Oldcoun- 
try, is a general Catholic meaning before God and people. First - 
of all our clergy will be responsible if our faithful will loose 
in this blessed struggle their spiritual equiponderous , by becom- 
ing apostates. God save us. Here is the time for the clergy to pro- 
ve that they are standing on the hight of their calling, will do 
their hard and responsible work of the good Shepherd. 

It is my pleasant obligation when I express my recognition of 
high respect of the majority of our clergy, which stood afar, and 
away from all kind of conspiracies, who are sincere clergymen of 
Christ who eliminate all personal, family interests, accepting the 
will of the Holy Mother Church. I beg Gods blessing upon them may 
they further on work unselfishly to strenghten the Church discipli- 
ne, as they did until now. This is the request of the Holy Aposto- 
lic See and the Catholic meaning. All those who have part in dis- 
order, let them repent and try to repair the action of their harm 
done. Let them realize, that their deeds were not worthy of a 
priest. It was only a method b,e which they risked the good name of 
our clergy, before the Holy Apostolic See and our good faithful./ 
"Dixi et salvani animam meam". 

Accept my Hierarchial blessing 

Your benevolent Father in Christ 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 


ARV. June 11, 1931. p. 1. No 24 

The Cleveland, Ohio "RODINA" No 23 of June 4,1931 in a little - 

article "Short Remarks" it states: 

One of our Sojedinenije men writes to us: The Editor of the A. 
R.V. is suspended. It is about two months now that the Editor did 
not write a single sentence. But, his name is still in the newspa- 
per and most probably he is receiving a salary. How can we find 
out the truth about this situation ? 

These remarks of the "Rodina", in the interest of truth and 
the Sojedinenije, I cannot leave without a remark. 

For the information of our members of the Sojedinenije, and 
the not informed writer of the "Rodina", I am informing the fol- 
lowing : 

Through the confidence of the Delagates of the Sojedinenije XX 
th Gary , Indiana Convention, held in 1929, I became the Chief Edi- 
tor of the Amerikansky Russky Viesthik, the official organ of the 

The unexpected election of my person to the post of a Chief 
Editor of the A. R.V. was great honor and distinction. 

The important and responsible work of an Editor of the A.R.V., 
I took it with great fear, hoping that God will help me. I began 
my work seriously and consciencesly. From the very beginning of 
my editorship worked with all my strenght in the interest of the 
Sojedinenije, the Rusin people and the good of our Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church. 

During my daily order of editorship, the question CELIBACY ca- 
me up. I had to occupy myself with the question on the pages of 
the A. R.V. , because this was a demand of my conscience, interest 
and paragraph of the Sojedinenije and two special resolutions of 
the Board of Trustees of the Sojedinenije. 

The Board of Trustees of the Sojedinenije ordered me to write 
against CELIBACY and to protest the laws and privileges of our Ea- 
stern Rite. 

I fulfilled the decision of the Sojedinenije Board of Trus- 
tees consequently and precicely. In our organ I wrote several ar- 
ticles against CELIBACY and in defense of our laws and privileges 
of our Greek Rite Catholic Church of Rusins. 

My articles against CELIBACY did not please Bishop Basil Ta- 
kacs, on account of these articles April 23, 1931 Bishop Basil - 
Takacs took away from me the permission to edit the A.R.V.. 

Even that, I obeyed the order of the Bishop, he, to my supri- 
se suspended me May 1, 1931 as a priest. 

When I expressed my disagreement in a letter, against the - 
bishops attitude concerning my person. He decidedly reminded me 
to resign formarly from the editorship of the A. R.V and saw to it, 
that my name was taken off the newspaper. 

I fulfilled the request of the bishop, when I resigned from - 
the editorship of the A. R.V. April 5, 1931. 

Michael Yuhasz Sr., President of the Sojedinenije, who is also 
against celibacy, in the interest of the Sojedinenije did not ac- 
cept my resignation, about which he notified me officially, saying: 
in the sense of the paragraph of the Sojedinenije By-Laws he has 
no right, no power, therefore he could not accept my resignation, 
because I only fulfilled the will of the Board of Trustees , when 
I wrote against CELIBACY defending the laws of our Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church. 

The Board of Trustees of the Sojedinenije will stress the matt- 
er of my resignation from the editorship of the A. R.V. on their - 


annual meeting July 29, 1931. 

Since April 23, 1931 I am not editing the official organ of - 
the Sojedineni je, nor am I receiving my salary. 

Being that the Sojedineni je President did not accept my resig- 
nation, I am still the legal Editor of the A.R.V., I am punchually 
present in my office in Homes tead, Pa. , in the Sojedinenije build.— 
ing. This is my obligation, because I am responsible for all to 
the members of our Organization, until I am the legal Editor of - 
the A.R.V. 

Fr. Stephen Varzaly 
Editor of the A.R.V. 


Pastoral Letter June 12 1931 
No 80/1931. 

Being that in the present conditions the Sojedinenije B6ard of 
Trustees are carrying a provocative mark and seal of such tenden- 
cy, which wishes to shake the principle of the highest authority 
of the Church, destroy the discipline, not having hope that their 
system will be corrected, stopped. Therefore it is necessary for 
me to take the consequence of it and resign from the protectorate 
of the Sojedinenije. 

When I am communicating with you Rev. Fathers this situation, I 
am calling your attention, that let every priest stand on the hight 
of his calling and try to overcome this destroying work among the 
people, a work which certain few are trying to achieve by deciet. 

Be worthy of your ancestors. The whole Catholic world is watch- 
ing us. Do not permit no one to damage our good name. 

Giving my episcopal blessing 

I am your benevolent Father 
in Christ 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 


A.R.V. June 18. 1931 p.l. 

The struggle for the laws and principles of our Holy Eastern 
rite has begun, all the faithful sons and daughters of the Greek 
Rite Catholic Rusin Church in the United States of America are ob- 
liged to take part to secure the future of our religion in the 
land of George Washington and to defend our treasured and beauti- 
ful RITE. . 

I do not doubt the faithfulness of our Rusin people concerning 
their ancestors, their grandfathers and great great grandfathers, 
because the Rusin people always overwhelmingly loved and still lo- 
ve our GREK RITE CATHOLIC RELIGION and her Eastern rite. 

The struggle of the Sojedinenije against CELIBACY is being 
praised and aproved by the Old-country Greek Rite Catholic Bishop- 
s and faithful. The struggle of celibacy and the security of our 
Eastern rite all the clergy and faithful of the Old-country ap - 
prove in the Eparchies of Munkacs, Prjasev, will stand by you un- 
till the final victory. 

In Prjasev the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin newspaper "Russkoje 


Slovo" , which is the official organ of the Eparchy, in its last - 
issue, praises the struggle against celibacy, calling all the Greek 
Rite Catholic faithful to be brave and courages in the atruggle a- 
gainst Latinization , standfast by your Greek Rite Catholic Rusin 
Church . 

The newspaper condemns Bishop Basil Takacs for not defending 
our Eastern Rite, who is forcefully introducing CELIBACY into our 
Church, which is harmful, for us . 


A.R.V. June 25, 1931. p. 4. 

Glory be to God: 

For the past 37 years I am living in the land of free, in the 
United States of America. During these years I had many joyful days 
also some bitter ones too. By the help of God I was consoled by our 
holy religion, bore all hardship and unpleasantness of our earthly 
life, without loosing my spiritual balance. 

Now in my old age, to teach others I may say, that my late fa- 
ther was right, when I was leaving him, going to the United States 
of America, he said: 

" Dear Son: You are going far away to the United States of A- 
merica. I do not know what is awaiting you there. Luck or ill fate. 
I your father am advising you, be always faithful son and priest of 
our GREEK RITE CATHOLIC RELIGION and the Rusin people. If you will 
be faithful to God and the Rusin people, you will be fortunate". 

" In times of hardship of our Greek Rite Catholic Rusin reli- 
gion, with its beatiful rite will be your greatest joy, serve God - 
faithfully, hold on firmly to your Greek Rite Catholic faith, be al- 
ways ready to die for her". 

After these beautiful fatherly advises , he embraced me held me 
close to his fatherly heart, kissed me with warm tears in his eyes 
and gave me his fatherly blessing. I also kissed my good father, leav- 
ing him with a heavy heart, with tears in my eyes ,1 left my family 
home, my village where I was born and my native country. 

I came to the United States of America to a world unknown to me. 
Thirty seven years ago there were not as many Greek Rite Catholic - 
Rusin people in the United States as there are at present. No one 
welcomed me, when I set foot on the soil of the United States of A" 
merica. What could I say about my life in the United States, from - 
the very beginning up to the present day ? That does not belong here 
because my subject is to write about something else. 

We all are aware that in the past 50 years our Greek Rite Catho- 
lic Rusin people with the guidance of our faithful clergy made such 
a great suprising progress in the United States of America, that oth- 
er nationals cannot praise themselves with such a progress. The half 
century was fully spirited work, and with overwhelming sacrifices of 
our wonderful Rusin people. Evidence of the great sacrificing love - 
is, the churches, rectories, halls, organizations, orphanage of St. 
Nicholas and the Motherhouse of the Sisters of St Basil the Great 
do testify. 

Progress is truely great and suprising. 


This is what our Greek Rite Catholic Rusin people accomplished 
during the 50 years. Glory to our good Rusin people to their church 
leaders who are still living, and a blessed repose to the departed 
from their labours and faithfulness towards the Greek Rite Cathol- 
-ic church and the Rusin people. 

Our good Rusin people could of accomplished a whole lot more , 
if some agents periodically would not disturbed them in their con- 
structive labor. 

I will not write about the bitterness and hardship of the past, 
let it be forgotten. The old wounds are not to be opened. 

Even though our Rusin people made such a great progress in spi- 
te of their hardship, still they wanted to make a greater pro- 
gress for the glory of God, and the Rusin people. We believed, that 
with the help of our own blood bishop we will make greater progress 
that is why we are trying to get a bishop for our Church. 

After a long wait, the Roman See gave us a bishop, with sorrow 
we must admit, there was no happiness joy for us in him. 

In the past 8 years after the death of late Bishop Soter Ortyn- 
sky, in 1924 we recived a bishop of our own blood, a Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Bishop in the person of Basil Takacs. 

In the United States of America at once, among our Greek Rite - 
Catholic people great joy sprung up.. The clergy and the faithful - 
rejoiced, began to look into the future through rose colored glas- 
ses. We did not expect from our bishop miracles, impossible deeds, 
only a constructive, inspireing work for the greater glory of God, 
religion and the Rusin people. 

Bishop Basil Takacs was welcomed not only with kind words, but 
also gave him a moral and financial helping hand, to labor success- 
fully for the Church and us. 

Bishop Takacs promised everything, presenting himself as a - 
full powered bishop. 

The clergy and the faithful believed in his words. The Greek - 
Rite Catholic organizations honored Bishop Basil Takacs choosing - 
him as their Protector and gave him moral and material help. 

Bishop Basil Takacs recieved a whole lot more from our Rusin - 
people, as any bishop could expect from his faithful. Our Rusin - 
people gave more respect to the bishop, than other bishops do not 
receive after long years of work. 

What did we receive in return for our sincerity, love sacrifice 
and help, from our own blood Bishop ? What did he do for our Greek 
Rite Catholic Church, the Rusin people during his 7 years of Epis- 
copacy ? 

Dear Reader, if you wish to receive a reply to these questions 
look around yourselves or ask other Rusin people and faithful Greek 
Rite Catholic Rusin priests. You will not be happy with the given 
reply, but you will squeeze out bitter tears. 

In our Church life there is no spiritual or material progress 
on the contrary, a down fall on every side. Among our good and faith- 
ful Greek Rite Catholic people you will not find no spirit, only 
bitterness, dissatisfaction. You hear more (God forbid me) grave - 
curses against the bishop. Which is a very sad situation. 

Why ? Because, what ever our Rusin people built in the past 50 
years with hard labor for the greater glory of God and the Rusin - 
people all is falling apart under the present administration. Our 
own bishop, who should guard the beauty of our Eastern Rite, whos - 


obligation is to defend the Greek Rite Catholic Church, is himself 
introducing " CELIBACY " and other foreign customs into our Rite. 

Such activities of Bishop Basil Takacs wounds the hearts of - 
clergy and faithful. The clergy and faithful protested against all 
thi9, but the bishop did not care nor was he concerned about the 
situation. He decided to go against the will of the clergy and the 
people; to Latinize our Greek Rite Catholic Church and our beauti- 
ful RITE. 

Are not such moves of our bishop are pitiful acts for us, can we 
look at them with foulded arms, on such a damaging activity ? 

In the United States we have our Rusin organizations, newspa- 
pers, among which is the glorious SOJEDINENIJE with the Amerikan- 
sky Russky Viestnik , an official organ of the organization holding 
a most prominent position. 

The Sojedineni je, the President, Board of Trustees, Editors at 
all time stood and stand by the Greek Rite Catholic Church of our 
Eastern Rite and the Rusin people . 

When this treasure of the Greek Rite Catholic Church and the 
people were in danger the Sojedineni je always came forward energec- 
tly with its official organ to defend us against our enemies. 

When our own Bishop Basil Takacs began to introduce "CELIBACY" 
and foreign customs in our Greek Rite Catholic Church, the Sojedi- 
nenije Board of Trustees, with its president, a national leader - 
Michael Yuhasz Sr. , at once protested against the Latin celibacy. 

According the order of the Sojedineni je Board of Trustees, Fr. 
Stephen Varzaly and Michael Yuhasz, Sr, began to write at once 
against "CELIBACY" and in defense of laws and privileges of the - 
Eastern Rite, reminding the Bishop to hold the Rusin people and de- 
fend our religion. 

The articles of the Editor and Michael Yuhasz Sr. for a long 
time were not permitted to appear in the A.R.V., because the Bishop 
as a Protector of the Sojedineni je did not permit the printing of .. 
such articles. It is understood, that under such circumstances, 
nothing was written against "CELIBACY" in the A.R.V. 

For the silence against the celibacy in the A. R. v., the members 
of the Sojedinenije got tired and began to blame the Editor Fr. - 
Stephen Varzaly and Michael Yuhasz Sr., President, calling them - 
traitors of the Eastern Rite. These faithful sons of our Greek Rite 
Catholic Church and the Rusin people had to suffer contempt for 
the untruth, for our bishop Basil Takacs, who did not permit the - 
publishing of articles in the A.R.V. against celibacy and defense 
of our Eastern Rite. 

For the love of our Eastern Rite and the Rusin people Fr. Steph- 
en Varzaly suffered the most, the Editor of the A.R.V., whom Bishop 
Basil Takacs is persecuting for the past year on account of his 
convictions . Bishop Basil Takacs did everything possible to dest •* 
roy him moraly and materially, not only himself but also his family. 

To destroy Fr. Stephen Varzaly, Editor of the A.R.V. the bishop 
SUSPENDED him for the second time as a priest. The reason: because 
the Editor was defending our Greek Rite Catholic religion and the 
Eastern Rite . 

The bishop also detested Michael Yuhasz Sr., President of the 
Sojedinenije, ONLY because he is energectly defending our Church 
and the Eastern Rite. 

Bishop Basil Takacs is persecuting not only the Editor, Presi- 
dent and the Board of Trustees of the Sojedinenije, but, even the 


faithful clergy of our Greek Rite Catholic Church. Until now he - 
suspended the following clergy :Fr.s Orestes Chornyak, Emil Nevic- 
ky, Constantine Auroroff, Stephen Varzaly and having on the black 
list all the faithful clergy who are struggling for the laws, and 
rights of our Greek Rite Catholic Church. He is ready to suspend 
them too at any time. 

It is a sad situation, when our bishop is punishing the 
faithful and successful clergy in the vineyard of Christ, and re™- 
warding those who are helping him to destroy our rights of the Ea- 
stern Church. The suspensions of the bishop are not valid before 
the people of God. Such move is nothing else, but the malpractice 
of bishops power. 

Bishop Basil Takacs for 6 years was hiding, covering up before 
us his intentions, to introduce celibacy in our Church. 

Even that he came to us with celibacy, still in New York N.Y . 
when he was questioned by the clergy, is he a full powered bishop 
He replied not once at one place, but several times in many place- 
that he is against celibacy and that the people must ptotest a- 
gainst it. 

What happend after all this ? 

When the clergy protested against celibacy at their clergy - 
meeting, and the faithful at their church meetings. Bishop Basil 
Takacs threw the protests in the waist-basket and said, that he 
will introduce celibacy even if its contrary to the will of the 
clergy and people. 

At present the situation is, which ever priest says anything - 
against celibacy and in defense of the Eastern Rite, the bishop - 
suspends him at once. 

In time of such activities of our bishop, our clergy and peop- 
le cannot remain silent. 

In our Rusin people and clergy there is so much love towards - 
our Greek Rite Catholic Rusin religion and the Eastern Rite that 
they will stop the activities of the bishop, will tell him, not to 
persecute the faithful clergy and the sons of the Rusin people and 
our Eastern Rite. 

Our Greek Rite Catholic people and all the members of the Soje- 
dinenije are obligated to tell the bishop, let us have peace, do 
not destroy our Eastern Rite and do not persecute the faithful 

We will not permit that, that our Bishop Latinize our Eastern 
Rite, with the introduction of "CELIBACY". 



ARV. February 11,1932, p. 6. 

Up to the present time I did not mix into the dispute of the A. 
R.V. and the Prosvita concerning celibacy and Latinization. 

The dispute began over principles. Later, as usually, it turn- 
ed to personal attacks, but it is coming back to the subject. In 
the Prosvita they have begun already to "talk clearly", by which 


they admit, that up to the present they have been writing very ob- 
scurely. Write more clearly. God will grant that you yourself will 
be enlightened. 

That now I am writing the reason for this is not because of 
the personal dispute of the newspaper, into which I do not wish to 
mix, but for something extraordinary with reference to the subject. 

During December I received and probably many others ha- 
ve recieved an appeal from the secretary of "The Converts Aid Soci- 
ety" of TVickham, England for a donation to help the former Protes- 
tant clergymen, who became Catholics and who are destitute /because 
of their conversion they not only lost their former position, but - 
also cannot get any jobs . 

Nowadays we receive many simular appeals and many of them are 
thrown into the waste-basket, but I read this one, thought it over 
and decided to answer in the following letter: 

Dear Secretary: 

Your appeal of December 15, 1931 was received. To help you in 
this most noble work of sponsoring the most delicate and most ex- 
quisite charity towards the converted persons I am enclosing $... 

But, allow me to suggest to the C.A.S. ... there is still a mo- 
re noble work of justice which could and should be done with great- 
er advantage for the Church and for those concerned I Namely : since 
some if the converted nuns become Catholics nuns, likewise most of 
the converted clergymen could become Catholic priests and most per- 
suasive and inducive of others. But, there is one obsticle the fact 
that they are married and have a family. 

The Catholic Church of the Latin Rite chooses rather to renoun- 
ce the benefits than to ordain married men and by doing so doing 
reestablish married clergy. The Catholic Church of the Latin rite - 
even goes further and . . . discounting the great losses . . . tries - 
to force CELIBACY into the Catholic Church of Eastern Rites, break- 
ing by that the agreement of Union, and excluding the possibility - 
of the conversion of the married clergy of the Orthodox Churches . 
"My appeal to the C.A.S. is: less charity and more justice to the 
converted clergymen, their wives and families, in all lands and na- 
tions, not forgetting that with the differences of a few 

generations ... we all are converts . 

With best wishes I am, very truly yours 

Rev. Joseph P. Hanulya 


Dear Reverend Father: 

" Thank you most sincerely for your kind gift and for your lett- 
er. We did try very hard in the case of one man to get him ordained 
by the Archbishop of Lemberg,but the case had to go to Rome, because 
it was the case of changing rite and although Bishop D'Herbigny in- 
terested himself in the case, it was turned down by Rome. 

Is not one of the real difficulties in this connection the fact, 

that actually the married clergy are really only tolorated 

socially, their wives are nothing, are they ? I have been told that 
they are even regarded by most people as little more than legalized 
mistresses, I don't know how far this is true, but, I certainly have 
been told it by people whom I should have thought knew what they we- 
er talking about. 


Once again thanking you for your kindness and begging your 
prayers and continued interest, I am Yours sincerely 

F.w. Chambers, Secretary 

We all are married or single, Catholic or non-catholic, must - 
pause and consider ! Because from this answer it is apparent to e- 
veryone that : 

1. Rome which lately is allowing to members of Latin Orders 
to change their rite, seemingly on account of chanqe of rite, real- 
ly on account of marriage did not allow even one of the converted 
Protestant clergyman to be ordained as Catholic priest. 

2. The Latin Church actually only tolerates the married cler- 

3 . The Latin Church regards the wives of our priests as lit- 
tle more than legalized misstresses" . 

Against such a conception, against such an action of the Latin 
Church every self-conscious person has to be indignant and has to 
protest poblicly. This is the first time that we hear that in the 
Catholic Church there can be and are some legelized mistresses .And 
this is not the opinion of an obscure secretary, but of an office 
of a nation wide organization, blessed by the Pope; and this offi- 
cer to give weight to his words, is refering to men who cught to 
know what they are talking about. 

Therefore I as a married priest, openly herewith: to the defensor 
matrimonii of our diocese, and to all other dioceses; to , our Bishop 
Rt. Rev. Basil Takacs, and to all the Greek Rite Catholic Bishops; 
to all Latin Bishops of America and to the whole world; the Holy 
Father, the Pope; and I request in the name of truth, justice and 
honor an official declaration. 

1. Whether the marriage, administered before the ordination, 
is Holy Sacrament, which has to be honored as such by everybody, or 
is it merely a "legalization of mistresses ?" . 

2. By what right can anyone dare to express himself in such 
a degredading manner about the wives of married clergy ? ! 

This appeal is made not because in any sound mind there could 
be even the slightest doubt about our full right to be married and 
about the legal and honorable standing of our wives, but that by 
such an official declaration the IGNORANCE, the PRE JUDICE , the MA- 
LICE of some fanatic Latin Catholic should be dispelled once for 
all ! 

I am sure that my appeal to defend the Sacrament of Holy Matri- 
mony of our priests and the defense of the honor of the wives of - 
our priests has the support of all the priests and of the wives 
of our priests . 

Hence, we demand an apology for the past and respect for the - 
future. But I proceed further ! If the marriage, the Sacrament 
instituted by Jesus Christ, when received by a seminarian, is con- 
sidered not as a Sacrament, but only as some legalization of mis- 
tresses, how then are regarded all of our Sacraments ?? and our en- 
tire rite ? It is very easy to conclude that they are regarded as 

But, those things are dear and precious to us ! and therefore 
we have to fight against any slandering of them, and we will fight 
and even if we loose . . . and may God avert it ... even so we will 


die not as traitors, but as faithful defenders of our rights and 
our honor ! 

Rev. Joseph P. Hanulya 

P.S. This article was simultaneously mailed to the "Amerikansky 
Russky Viestnik and the Prosvita". 


A.R.V. April 14, 1932, p. 3. 

Over 3000 Rusins were present at the meeting. Ten parishes 
sent their representatives . 

A proposal was presented to those present at the meeting which 
was unanimously accepted. 

The Greek Rite Catholic Rusin people living in Cambria and So- 
merset counties met in Johns town, Pa. , April 10,1932. 

1. They expressed their faithfulness and loyalty to the 
Greek Rite Catholic Church united with the Roman See, at the same 
time they requested the respect of the Union contract and the invi- 
obility of laws and privileges of the Eastern Rite. 

2 . The condemned Bishop Basil Takacs and Bishop Bohacevsky 
for their unfaithfulness to the Greek Rite Catholic Church of the 
Eastern Rite , also for the persecution of the faithful sons the - 
priests of the Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

3. Requesting the abrogation of celibacy and Latinization as 
soon as possible. 

4. Requesting the ordination of all our married seminarians 
as soon as possible. 

5. Requesting that our Greek Rite Catholic priests to speak 
publicly against celibacy, and all the injustice which are conduct- 
ed in our Eparchy. 

6. Requesting the approval of the Union of Ungvar for the U- 
nited States of America. 

7. Approving the struggle of the "Sojedineni je" and the A.R. 
V. against celibacy and Latinization. Expressed their thanks to the 
Editors of all the Officials for their faithfulness to the Eas- 
tern Rite. 

8. Requesting a call for an Ecclesiastical Nationan Congress 

9. Requesting that all the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin faithful 
hold simular meetings in all centers of the United States , as the 
one held in Johnstown, Pa. 

10. Requesting from all the Sojedineni je Lodges, that at the 
future Convention of the Sojedineni je they elect delegates who - 
are faithful sons and daughters of the Eastern Rite. Who whole 
heartedly condemn celibacy and Latinization 

All the decisions resolutions to be sent to the proper place. 


Detroit, Mich. June 23,1932 

We the undersigned members trusted by the 21st Sojedinenije 
Convention, met Bishop Basil Takacs in Toledo, Ohio, concerning mat- 
ters of celibacy. Our report to the Convention is as follows: 

1. The Bishop agreed to cooperate with us and support our pe- 


tition of our committee, who are selected by the Convention to 
send the petition to Rome. 

2 . The Bishop recommended to have two copies made of the pe- 
tition, one copy which he is willing to deliver personally to the 
Holy Father in Rome; and the other to a concerned place, but can- 
not guarentee success. This can happen not earlier, when he is in- 
tending to attend a conference of the Eastern Rite Bishops in Rome. 

3. Questions which are tied with celibacy, as suspension of 
clergy, ordination of seminarians, cannot be placed in the same pe- 
tition, because it is a separate question, separate matter, which 
should be petitioned separately. What will be the result of these 
petitions, we do not know. According the bishop, we cannot be sure 
will all our petitions will be heard, fulfilled. Still, we can ho- 
pe to receive something. 

The conditions of these petitions are the following: 

a) The Amerikansky Russky Viestniks criticizing must stop 
at once, let Rome see your good will and intentions. 

b) Fr. Stephen Varzaly and Albert Cmor are to recall their 
articles publicly in which they overstepped the boundries . 

c) In Church matters there must be peace; financial PASSIVE 
RESISTANCE which is existing too long, must stop. The churches must 
fulfill their obligations to the Eparchy. 

We are approving the authenticity of this report with our sig- 
natures : 

Fr. Gabriel Marty ak Fr. Nicholas Csopey Fr. Desiderius Simkow 
Dr. George Varga Dr. Peter Iv. Zeedick 




Pastoral Letter, July 15,1932 
A.R.V. July 14, 1932. p. 7. 
Rt.Rev. Basil Takacs ) 

Bishop of Pittsburgh ) 

Greek Rite Catholic Diocese ) 

To the 

V.Rev. Orestes Chornock ) Honorable Tribunal 

Pastor of St. John the Baptist ) of 

Greek Rite Catholic Congregation ) Phila. Archdiocese 

Bridgeport , Conn . ) 


Honorable Tribunal : 

We regret that we have to begin this Brief with some reluctance 

towards the present Tribunal. 

We accept the statement that this Court of Appeal will pass : 
a) "On the action of the plaintiff in transferring the Defen- 

ant to another parish" and 


b) "on the procedure of the Lower Court inflicting penalties 
upon the Defendant". 

But we cannot and will not accept the third statement, namely: 
that "celibacy is not the subject of this proceeding", because the 
Honorable Tribunal is mistaken in stating that "this (celibacy) has 
been finally decided by the Holy See.". 

In Re of celibacy the Holy See from time to time gave out many 
decrees. This in itself proves that neither one of them was or is 
final . 

Consequently, the third statement of the Honorable Tribunal is 
not only a mistake, but a pre judicious and an antagonistic posi- 
tion of the Tribunal towards the Defendant. We hope that our; prodf- 
s will clear the minds and hearts. 

We are entitled to demand full deliberation about the decree - 
of celibacy, because in the "Facts" of the Lower Court it is plain- 
ly stated that the Defendant in questione enim Celibatus factus 
est in stricto sensu vocis movens et dux dissidentium et HAC E 
CAUSA die 11 Decembris 1930 sub No 151-1930 Ordinatus transtulit 0- 
reste»n Chornock a parochia St. Joannis Bpt. in Bridgeport f Conn. ad 
parochiam S. Nicolai in Roebling ,N.J. 

1. Decree of celibacy not legal, not valid, not obligatory. 

We deny that " Cum data" decree and all former decrees are le- 
gal, valid and obligatory. 

We contend that all the decrees of celibacy as to the Eastern 
Catholic Church are contrary. 

1. to the discipline of the Eastern Church. 

2. to the pact of the Union. 

3. to the century customs of the whole Church, and 

4. to the customs of our Church here in America 

5. to the wishes of all the priests and of all the people 
with exception of one percent and so not legal, not valid not obli- 
gatory. Opposition to such a decree cannot be a delinquency, cannot 
be the cause of any punishment and any punishment imposed on that 
ground is illegal, is an abuse of power, is either ignorance of 
the Canon Law or tyranism. 

6. We will prove that the plaintiff used the decree of celi- 
bacy only as a camouflage to further his desposition and nepotism 
that he is not the "pastor", but the "percussor" of the majority - 
of his flock. ( case of Rev. Emil Nevicky.). 

7. We will prove that the Plaintiff did not keep and execute 
other decrees of the Holy See and often acted against them; that - 
he did not care for the progress of our Church here in America just 
for his despotism and nepotism. 

8. We will prove that in transferring and in suspending Rev. 
Orestes Chornack he did not proceed according the Canon Law and 
the transferring was illegal, null and void. 

We demand that the Rt.Rev. Bishop Basil Takacs should be cited 
by this Honorable Tribunal for cross examination with the obliga- 
tion to produce all the documents pertaining to this subject. 


We are unable to find any proof of the FACtS of the Lower Court 
Not even a statement that they were proven. On the ground of " asse- 
rentis est probatio", the inability or the neglect of the accusers 


to do that in itself a sufficient reason to dessolve the judgement 
Although not obliged to do so, we will prove that Rev. Orestes 
Chornock is entirely innocent of the crime of suscitationis turba- 
rum, atque revolutionis inter fideles nostros, agitationis contra 
potestatis Ecclesiasticae, consequently he did not deserve any pu- 

We contend that if Rev. Orestes Chornock, as pastor, has in so- 
me decree cooperated in the action of his parishioners , even then 
he did not deserve any punishment. 

3. Suspension not valid. 

The Lower Court simply takes the suspencion of Rev. Orestes 
Chornock as an infallible dogma; overlooks the facts that the De- 
fendant, before being suspended, demanded " Canonicum processum" - 
which was illegally denied to him cites only in part of the " Cum 
data" decree and a false rule .... and condemns the Defendant. 

We contend that the suspicion of Rev. Orestes Chornock was 
and is entirely invalid. 

We contend that even if the suspension of the Defendant had - 
been valid, he did not become irregular by not obeying, because - 
through appeal it became "in suspensio". 

Consequently, the decision of the Lower Court is without any 
foundation and stigmatizes the levity of all participating in it. 

4. Privation not valid. 

In the former paragraph it was stated alresdy that the deci - 
sion of the Lower Cort was rediculous, because without foundation. 

Here we contend that even if there had been sufficient ground 
to condemn the Defendant, the decision of the Lower Court is not - 
valid on account of formalities . 

We contend that this statement of the Lower Court, "strictissi- 
me servatis omnibus praescriptis ac legibus" is all false. 


We propose and ask the Honorable Tribunal to call as witnesses 
Rev. Eugene Volkay, Ashbury Park, N.J. 

Rev. Michael Andrejkovics, 321 Pacific Ave, Jersey City,N.J. 
Mrs Veronica Yash, born Mudrak, Bridgeport, Conn. 
Mrs Yolanda Chornock, born Molchanyi, Bridgeport, Conn. 
We challenge the Plaintiff to put the witness stand all the - 
Judges of the Lower Court. 


For conclusion we humbly ask that the action of the bishop in 
transferring and suspending Rev. Orestes Chornock should be declar- 
ed illegal, null and void. 

That Rev. Orestes Chornock should be exonerated from any and 
all acts accused for; 

That Rev. Orestes Chornock should be compensated for all his 
moral and financial losses. 



March 1, "Cum data" published in Rome. 

May 30. A Committee of Bridgeport, Conn, congregation was sent 


to New Britain, Conn, to Rt.Rev. Basil Takacs , to find out his o- 
pinion in re of celibacy. 

June 9. Committee reports to the Congregation Decision to 
send a petition to the Bishop. 

September 18. Bridgeport congregation sent the petition to the 

October 5. "Cum data" decree mailed to the priests. 

November 16. Eight beneficial lodges of the Greek Catholic U- 
nion sent out a circular to the rest of the lodges of the same or- 
ganization and to parishes. 

December 11 . Rev. Orestes Chornock transferred to Roebling,N. J. 

December 13. Appeal of Rev. Orestes Chornock and request for 
a Canonical procedure. 

December 16. Bishops answer that his decision is final. 

December 31. A letter of Bishop that Father Orestes Chornock 
will be ipso facto suspended if he officiates. 

January 4. Rev. Orestes Chornock had 375 for Holy Communion 
and his annual meeting. 

January 13. Suspension of Father Orestes Chornock published. 

February 2. The Supreme Officers of the Greek Catholic Union 
sent a memorandum against celibacy. 

February 12. Appeal of Father Orestes to the Apostolic Delegate. 

February 14. Answer from the Apostolic Delegate. 

July 8 . Bishop urges Father Orestes Chornock to get rid 
of suspension 

August 5. Father Orestes Chornock asks that the suspension 
should be taken off. 

August 18. Rey. Valentine Gorzo promotor iustitiae accuses 
Rev. Orestes Chornock. 

August 3. Session of the Lower Court, sentence of privation. 

September 1. Conference of priests - signing of petition a- 
gainst celibacy, all judges signed it. 

September 10 . Decision of Tribunal mailed to Rev. Orestes Chor- 

September 20. Appeal of Rev. Orestes Chornock 

April 23. Information about the second trial. 

May 3. Father Orestes Chornock appoint Father Joseph P. 
Hanulya as his procurator 

May 23. Time of hearing fixed for May 27th at 10 A.M. 

Father Joseph P, Hanulya asks postponement till 
May 31-st 

May 27. Hearing of case. 


"Ecclesiam Graeco Catholicam constituunt ili Catholici Christi- 
ani qui Ritum Graecorum observant et disciplinam in Synodis Orien- 
talibus decretum per S. Sedem approbatam, in sensu Unionis Graecae 
et Latinae Ecclesiae in Concilio Florentino renovatae cujus decret 
turn sequens est; Eugenius Eppus" .... (Papp Szilagyi 19) 



He is suppose to be the bishop of the Greek Rite Catholic E- 
parchy of Pittsburgh, although not elected by the priests accord- 
ing to the pact of Union. 


Married. Came to America 1908. Pastor of St. John's Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Church, Bridgeport, Conn., since March 25, 1911. Dean 
of New York District since 1914 up to 1929 when he resigned. Gene- 
rally considered as "Parochus" of the congregation. 


The discipline of the Eastern Catholic Church contains the 
privilege to have married priests. (Benedictus XIV) in "Etsi pas- 
toralis" May 25, 1742, and in "Demandatam coelitus December 24, 
1743. Gregorius XVI in " Inter gravissimus". Privilegium non ces- 
sat suis non usu, aut usu contrario nee abusu.( Antonius M. Aregui 
S.I. Summarium Theologiae Moralis par. 98) Canon 10. " Lex non re- 

vocat conseutudines centenarias .... " Canon 2. "Privilegia 

concesso alicui comminitati, dignitati locove renuntiare privatis 
personis non licet". 

Constetutio Apostolica Canon 61 "Qui ordinari volunt coelibes 
prius interrogantur num habeant donum continentiae et sic ordina- 
tur, secus prius ducant virginem honestam, et sic promoveantur Lec- 
tores, Sub. Diac. et Diac. et Presbyteros. 

In the Eastern Church even Ordo is not an impedimentum dirimens 
c. 75 Sacerdotes, secundo ducens , deponitur, sed non excommunica- 
tur . 

Rt. Rev. Bishop Basil Takacs is compelling the applicant for 
theological studies to sign a declaration that he will remain Coe- 
lebs . Such a custom is contrary to the Eastern discipline . 


Consuetudo debet esse: diuturna per actus notorios scilicet - 
per 40 annos continuo et competos . . . est optima legem inter- 

The first decree of celibacy was given October 1, 1890. Rev. 
Eugene Volkay, a married Greek Rite Catholic priest came to Ameri- 
ca together with his wife and children on March 26, 1890, and sin- 
ce then he is living here continuously and undisturbed. After him 
many other priests came with their families. Many married semina- 
rians were ordained here in America so by the late Bishop Soter - 
Ortynsky as by Bishop Basil Takacs,. 1. "Deseutudine contraria 
legitima lex cessat" (A. Arregui . Par. 76) " Codices CIV recenti- 
ores conseutudini nullam vim tribuunt derogandi legibus, si tamen 
maxima pars populi legem per longum tempus non observaret, posset 
quis prudenter censeri a legs excusatus" (A. Arregui. Par. 76) . 

At least 76 percent of the priests always were married; about 
13 percent were widowers, and only 12 percent coelibes or monks. 



Art. 3. of "Cum data" prescribes that the Bishop should pre- 
serve ( invigilare) not only the doctrine and morals, but the 
discipline of his Eastern Church 

Art. 12 of "Cum data" demands that only those priests who ca- 
me from Galicia or Hungary or Jugoslavia to America and intend to 
stay here must be coelebes. 

In that article there .is no mention about the priests coming 
from Czechoslovakia or Podkarpatska Rus ' our Motherland. 

In that article there is no mention about the seminarians born 
and educated here in America. 

Because Bishop Basil Takacs applied the "Cum data" even to tho- 
se not mentioned in the decree, therefore, the priests as well ad 
the people became indignant and protested his action.. 


The Union of our ancestors was completed April 24, 1649 and ap- 
proved by the Holy See June 1655. " Auctoritatae Apostolica tenore 
presentium concedimus, et impertimur. Non obstantibus Contrariis 
quibuscumque . " . 

This was not done " Ad beneplacitum" . 

There were three conditions : 

1. ut Ritus Graecae Ecclesiae nobis servare liceat .... 

2. Episcopum a nobis electum, et ab Apostolica Sede confirma- 
tum habere .... 

3 . libertatibus Ecclesiasticis libere fungi . . 

There was never the least doubt that under "Libertatibus" was 
understood the privilege to have married priests.. 

Nulli ergo omnio et indulti infringere (Clemens VIII Decembri 
23, 1595 " Magnus Dominus". 


" Lex ante promulgationem non obligat" (Noldin. p. 180) 

Every bishop is obligated to compare the text of the law to be 
published to his people with the original text and if necessary to 
explain it. (Noldin p. 180) . 

Si lex aliqua disciplinaria videtur populo nimis dificilia vel 
rerum adiunctis minus conveniens, ad legislatorem appelatio fieri 
potest, interim vere obligatio legis ex praesumpto consensu legis- 
lators suspenditur ( Noldin p. 182) . 

" Acceptatio legis a subditis per se requiritur ad vim obligan- 
di. Quodsi tamen a maiore et saniore parte populi lex non sit accep- 
tata reliquos ligare non consetur, nisi superior denuo earn urgeat. 
(A. Arregui S.J. p. 62). 

"QUODSI Episcopi lex suae diocesi certo moxia, videatur,non te- 
netur eis observationem urgere. (Noldin. p. 182) . 


Rt. Rev. Basil Takacs claims the right to transfer any of his 
priests ad notum. He refers to Art. 15 of "Cum data", but he fails 
to notice : 

1. the distinction between "Rectores" and "Parochus" and 

2 . he fails to see the closing part of the same article 


which says : "Amovari autem non poterunt absque causis gravibus et 
iustis" . 

It was stated above that Fr. Orestes Chornock was generally 
considered not a temporary rector, but as Parochus although not in- 
antovibilis . 

In the translation of the libellus accusationis made in 

Rev. Orestes Chornock is always designated as "parochus " . 

A parochus cannot be transferred especially to a parish of "ni- 
mia inferioris" without just and grave cause, without prior pater- 
nal admonition giving the reason for same and without the consulta- 
tion of two parochi consultores. Can. 2147, 2157,2158,2159, 60,62,- 
63-64, 65,66. 

At the time when Rev. Orestes Chornock was transferred the fol- 
lowing priests were the parochi consultores: Rev. Emil Kubek , Rev. 
Elias Gojdics and Rev. Edmund Tabakovics. We are absoluteli sure - 
that Bishop Basil Takacs had no consultation with those parochi con- 
sultores . 

In the libellus accusationis it is plainly stated that by trans- 
ferring the Bishop wanted not so much to correct Rev. Orestes Chor- 
nock as to punish him, deinde intendens etiam pinite Orest- 
es Chornock . 

Cn. 2287 "Ab inflictis poenis vindicativis datur appelatio seu 
recursus in suspensio". 

Cn. 2243 "Appelatio ... censuras suspendunt nisi reus appela- 
tionem interposuerit non a sola poena sed ab ipsa quoque sententia 
vel praecepto". 

" Poena dubie iusta servanda excepto casu appelationis in 

suspensivo" (A. Arregui .p. 881 cn. 2219-2) . 


The only document signed by Rev. Orestes chornock was the peti- 
tion of his congregation sent to the Bishop September 18,1929. That 
petition was not a public one, but private. He was punished only 
December 11, 1930. That shows that he was punished not for the pe- 
tition sent to the Bishop and signed by him, but for the circular 
sent out on November 16,1930 by the lodges of his church. In those 
lodges the members of the lodges are acting through their officers 
over whom the priest has nc control, 
.p. 8. Amerikansky Russky Viestnik. 

But even if he would have any part in their action "Cooperens - 
mere ad facilius patrandum delictum, quamvis ex officio obligatus 
sit ad ipsum impediendum" , he would not be liable for it and would 
not deserve any punishment. (A. Arregui p. 878) . 


None of the reasons prescribed by Cns . 952-7 could be found as 
the foundation of the action of the bishop in suspending Rev. Orestes 
Chornock . 

Rev. Orestes Chornock appealed against the order of transfer 
which made it in suspensivo as shown above. 


Before the Lower Court Rev. Orestes Chornock made his excep- 
tions against Rev. Julius Grigassy the chairman, against Rev. Va- 
lentine Gorzo the promotor justiciae and against Rev. Stephen Loja 
one of the judges. 

The protocollum is sufficient proff that those exceptions are 
never referred to the Bishop as required. 

" Officialis perlegens Par. 1. and 3. Cn. 1614 publicat et 
iam factum istud Episcopi vi cuius designavit ipse membra omnia 
Tribunalis incompe ten tern aut alio mode suspectum ? Judices unani- 
miter abiiciunt asertionem talis generis". 

Recommendation for mercy by four judges proves real feeling, 
that there was no sufficient reason to impose such a terrible pu- 
nishment on a priest, so much less on Rev. Orestes Chornock. 


Already Leo X. (1513-1521 in his"Hotu proprio" of May 26,1521 

said: sub excommunicatione latae sententiae mandamus pacifi- 

ce, ac perpetuo frui guardereque iisdem immunitatibus, exemption- 
ibus privilegiis .... invocat etiam ad hoc si opus fuerit auxi- 
lio brachii secularia, non obstantibus .... ( Papp Szilagyi p. 367). 

May 25, 1932 Rev. Joseph P. Hanulya 





WE beg leave to submit the following arguments in law and in 
fact to sustain the contentions made by the Defendant in his ap- 
peal from the Tribunal of the Greek Ruthenian Ordinariate to the 
Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church. 

1. We claim that the trial by the Tribunal of the Greek Ru- 
thenian Ordinariate is invalid, because of a defect of procedure . 
The Defendant placed the outset of the trial, viz., against Very 
Rev. Julius Grigassy, Officialis; against Rev. Stephen Loya, Judge 
Collegialis; against Rev. Valentine Gorzo, Promotor Justiciae. WE 
contended that the Actuarius took no notice of the exceptions a- 
gainst the Very Rev. Officialis, that it was not recorded in the 
"Acta processus", and that it was not decided in accordance with 
Can. 1614, viz., by the Bishop. The protocollum of the "acta" of 
the Tribunal, as filed with this Court, states that the Official- 
is read Canon 1614 and announced that the mere appointment by the 
Bishop of the officers of the Court evidenced the absence of sus- 
picion. Then the Officialis asked the Court whether any of its 
members were incompetent or suspected, to which each of the judges 
answered negatively. 

We offer to establish the truth of our contention that the Tri- 
bunal ignored this " exception", by calling as a witness Very Rev. 


Michael Andre jkovics , one of the judges of the Court of the Greek 
Rite Ordinariate. Consequently we claim that the whole juridical 
process of the tribunal of the first instance was utterly invalid. 
We simularly claim that no decree of " sanatio '• can be granted by 
the Bishop until our contention that the Officialis is "suspectus" 
has been argued before the proper person, i.e., the Bishop, in ac- 
cordance with the prescription of Canon 1616 "auditis partibus". 

2. We claim that the penalty put upon the Defendant by the 
Court of the first instance is invalid, because due dorm of law 
was not observed by the Bishop in transferring the Defendant from 
Bridgeport to Roebling. 

We content that Father Orestes Chornock is not simply a" rec- 
tor parochia" but a " parochus ", that the faculty contained in 
article 15 of the decree "Cum data" is merely restatement of Ca- 
non 486 of the Code and applies only to "rectores" in parishes - 
and missions and that the Bishop is bound to follow the canonical 
procedure established in Lib. V. tit. XXIX of the Code in regard 
to transfer of removable rectors in administrative transfers and 
the penal law of the Code in penal transfers. Since the Bishop 
did not follow the canonical procedure, there was no canonical 
disobedience on the part of the Defendant; hence there was no ro- 
om for suspension, and consequently the sentence of the Court, im- 
posed, because of alleged contumacy in censure for a period of 6. 
months is null and void. 

We contend that decree "Cum data" recognizes the existance of 
pastors in the strict sense in the Greek Ruthenian Ordinariates - 
of the United States. In Article 5,11,26,33,39,42,43, distinct - 
mention of "parochi" is made. More over, the pastor of the church 
of St. John the Baptist in Homes tead, Pa. , is a "parochus inamovi- 
bilis". Other pastors, especially of the larger benefices, such as 
that of St. John the Baptist in Bridgeport, Conn. , must be at least 
" parochi amovibilis". Finally the letter of appointment of Fr. 
Orestes Chornock to the parish of St. John the Baptist in Bridge- 
port constitutes him as pastor. Attention is also called to the 
Latin translation of the "libellus accudationes " which designat- 
es Fr. Orestes Chornock as pastor (parochus) . 

3. The transfer of Fr. Orestes Chornock was not an "arootio" 
but a "translatio poenalis" as mentioned in canon 2298, n. 3. This 
is established by the " libellus accusationis"; Intendens etiam 
punire Orestem Chornock". (Cf . also "Documentum latae sententiae" 
p. 2.; Intendens etiam punire Orestem Chornock, qui erat auctor to- 
tius rei, trans tuli" etc. 

The transfer was dated December 11, 1930. On December 13,1930 
Fr. Orestes Chornock appealed and demanded a canonical process. 
This immediately suspended the effect of "trans latic poenalis", ac- 
cording canon 2287; " Ab inflictis poenis vindicativis datur appel- 
latio seu recursus in suspensivo" Fr. Orestes Chornock remaining 
in Bridgeport, therefore, did not warrent the suspension put upon 
him by the Ordinary through letter dated December 31. 1930. 

This is not violative of article 16 of the decree "Cum data" , 
which allows a "recursus in devolutivo" to a removed priest, for 
there the case of "remotio osconomica" is patently considered. 

4. Dato sed non concesso, that the suspension of Fr. Orestes 
Chornock was valid, the fact shows that he did not deserve the pe- 
nalty put upon him by the Court. On August 5, 1931 Fr. Orestes 


Chornock expressed his willingness to obey, as the sentence of the 
Court declared. The Bishop then insisted that Fr. Orestes Chor- 
nock submit, to certain conditions, which the defense claims , were 
unjustified and uncanonical. The first of these was to resign from 
his parish in Bridgeport, from which he was supposed to have been 
removed seven months previously, the second condition was to ac- 
knowledge his participation in the agitation against the law of ce- 
libacy - a participation which Fr. Orestes Chornock contends he ne- 
ver had ( and is willing to prove by witnesses) . These we claim to 
the Court were excessive and uncaninical conditions imposed in or- 
der that the defendant might be telieved from his suspension. 

Fr. Orestes Chornock had a month to recede from his alleged 
contumacy. This he did on August 5, that is, within one month from 
the "monitio" of July 8th. There was no justification for institut- 
ing the canonical process against him. 

5. Dato sed non concesso, that article 15 of the decree" Cum 
data" can be applied in the present case, we contend that there 
was no just and grave cause for the transfer of the Defendant to - 
Roebling. We insist that the bishop establish the validity of his 

act to transfer by proving and merely asserting, the exi stance of 
these causes. 

The Bishop, as is learned from the document containing the"sen- 
tentia" states that the Defendant incited the people against ecc- 
lesiastical discipline in regard to celibacy clause of the decree 
"Cum data". On September 18,1929 the Bridgeport congregation sent 
a petition to the Bishop asking him to intercede that the law be 
changed. On October 5, 1929 the decree "Cum data" was communicated 
by the Bishop to the priests. On November 16, 1930 eight benefici- 
al lodges of the parish of Fr. Orestes Chornock, but, over whose 
officers he has no control, sent a circular concerning the celibacy 
law to the other lodges in the diocese . The Bishop claims that Fr . 
Orestes Chornock was the moving spirit of this action and for such 
a reason he transfered him. We contend that the bishop must prove 
this to the Court in order to sustain the validity of the transfer. 
We are ready to offer in rebuttal as witnesses the heads of the 
lodges of the Bridgeport parish who will testify that Fr. Orestes 
Chornock was not the "dux dissidentium" . 

The mere fact that Fr . Orestes Chornock engaged in an orderly 
protest against the law does not make him guilty of a delinquency. 
In the petition sent to the Holy See, 125 priests of the Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Ordinariate, including the judges of the Court of the 
first instance, signed the petition. The selection of Fr. Orestes 
Chornock for punishment, even though he did not sign the petition, 
is unjust and inequitable on the part of the Bishop. 

6. Attention of the Court is also called to the fact that 
four of the five judges of the first tribunal recommended mercy to 
the Defendant an obvious indication of their unwillingness to de- 
cree that the defendant deserves such a stern punishment and not 
impropable indication that the Court was undully influenced by the 
authority of the Bishop. 

Therefore, we respectfully request from the Court a complete 
reversal of the decision of the Tribunal of the first instance. 

A declaration of the invalidity of the transfer and suspen- 
sion placed by the Bishop upon Fr. Orestes chornock. 

Compensation for the material and moral injury done the Defend" 


ant by the action of the Bishop. 
Et Deus, etc. 

May 27, 1932 Rev. Adrian J. Kilker,J.C.D. 


Rev. Joseph P, Hanulya 


A.R.V. July 28, 1932, p. 9. 

Holy Father: 

I the undersigned priest of the Greek Ruthenian Eparchy of - 
Pittsburgh humbly prostrated before the feet of Your Holiness pe- 
tion that a remedy of restoration in previous condition "restitu- 
tio in integrum"- be granted to me in a case of a double infavor- 
able criminal sentence issued against me in ignorance with the 
reason given in Canon 1905 par. 2. n 4. namely on account of evi- 
dent disregard of the prescription of the law. 

The very Tribunal of the second instance of Philadelphia dele- 
gated for this case by the Oriental Congregation, admits, that pre- 
scription of the law were neglected in the first instance. (Cf .in- 
cluded sentence of the Philadelphia Tribunal) . However, even the 
Tribunal of second instance, evidently omitted the prescriptions 
of the law. 

The Tribunal of the first instance violated the following pre- 
scriptions : 

1. Exception of suspicion raised by me against the official 
during the session of the Tribunal was not decided by the Bishop 
as is specified in Canon 1614. This can be clearly seen from the 
inspection of the acts . When afterwards question of this defect - 
came into light before Tribunal of the second instance, the Bishop 
transmitted a decree of sanation to the official of the second in" 
stance with the request that he insert it to the documents of this 
case, without hearing me as specified by canon 1616 

2. Prescriptions of the canons 1858 - 1862 were not observed 
since in one and only session the whole case was disposed and sen- 
tence issued. 

3. Although sentence was issued by five judges, as is seen 
from the acts . 

4. No opportunity was given to prepare the defense orally or 
in writing, which should be a sufficient cause for a remedy reques- 
ted, namely restoration into former state - "restitutio in integ- 

In the Tribunal of the second instance the following prescrip- 
tions of the law were omitted: 

1. No publication was made of the procedure and no opportuni- 
ty was given to inspect the act in a way, that to this day neither 
I myself nor my advocate were able to inspect the act of the proce- 

2. Interpretation of the decree "Cum data" , especially of the 
article 15 of the same decree in the sentence of the Tribunal of 
the second instance is altogether erroneous since these articles - 
refer to the administrative transfers and not penal as this case. 

July 21, 1932 


Of Your Holiness 
most loyal servant 
Orestes P. Chornock 
Greek Rite Catholic Church 
of St. John the Baptist 

Joseph P. Hanulya 


2408 14th Street 

Cleveland , Ohio . 


The Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church of March 4,1932 
No. 154/1932, among others it is informing the Eparchial Ordinari- 
ate in the followin manner: 

" In regard to celibacy. You may hold this for certain that - 
the Holy See is insisting on the prescriptions published and in no 
way has intention to deflect from them, since this is required by 
the public welfer of the souls". 

The same Congregation turn again on April 16,1932, to the E- 
parchial Ordinariate and now in a decided tone declares , as fol- 

Sacred Congregation Rome, April 16, 1932 

for the Oriental Church Borgo Nuovo. 76 (Q. 113) 

Prot. N. 572-1932 

To: His Excellency 
Basil Takacs 

Ordinary of the Ruthenians 
Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Your Excellency: 

This Holy Congregation has already sufficiently informed Your 
Excellency with the letter No 154-1932 of last March 4th, what is 
the mind of the Holy See in regard to the onservance of the law of 
celibacy by the Oriental clergy. 

The decree of the Congregation of the Propagation of the Faith 
namely that priests , who wish to come to America to exercise their 
Holy ministry among the faithful of the Oriental Rite, must be ce- 
lebate, or, at least, widowers, reamains intact. This decree which 
notice was given to the bishops of the Latin rite with a letter of 
April 12, 1894, referred and referres to all, to all priests with- 
out distinction between this or that rite (Cf . pointed document at*- 
tached to this letter) . 

The decrees which afterwards were issued only for the Rutheni- 
ans, either confirm the existent law or at least, did not revoke - 
it, and in this way remained in force general prescri-tion issued 
without distinction for the Oriental clergy. 

Since the Holy Oriental Congregation did not reply to those - 
Greek Rite Catholic priests of the city of Pittsburgh, who have 
sent well known petition to Holy Father on September 1931 and con- 


sidering the circumstances a direct reply did not seem proper. I 
ask Your Excellency that on some next given occasion, you be so 
kind to notify this clergy, or at least those among the priests - 
whom you will deem more prudent, that the question of celibacy in 
America was again throughly discussed, and the Holy See decreed - 
that nothing should be changed. 

It would be in vain, I think, to admonish those who consider 
this question with a hostile mind, but I leave up to you to speak 
about it when it will opportune and helpful. 

Meanwhile I pray to God to bless you for many years And I re- 
main most respectfully Your Excellency's faithful brother 

Card. A .Sincero, Secretary 
H.T. Cicognani, Assessor 

To this Apostolic rescript were added "the Decree of the Apos- 
tolic See about Celibacy", "The Acts of the Apostolic See about ce- 
libacy of the Ruthenian Rite priests living in the United States - 
of America". 

Encyclical Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaga- 
tion of the Faith of October 1, 1890. 

For some years it has become a custom that the priests of the 
Greek Ruthenian Rite would arrive to the United States of North 
America, especially to the SS. Peter and Paul Archdiocese of Phila- 
delphia, to take care of the faithful living in these regions and 
professing the same rite. Some of these priests have brought with 
them their wives and children, thus causing the greatest scandal a. 
mong Catholic and Orthodox living there (???) For this reason fear 
justly fell upon the bishops of those regions that the ministry of 
the married clergy would not bring greatest damage to the ecclesi- 
astical discipline and religion, in as much as most of these 
priests dare to exercise sacred duties withot any dependence of the 
local Ordinaries. And upon insistent petitions of the same ordina- 
ries this Sacred Congregation decreed that the following rules ha- 
ve to be observed in future . 

1. The priests of the Greek Ruthenian Rite who wish to come 
and stay in the United States of North America must be celebates. 


Letter of the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the 
Faith to the Latin Bishops, April 12, 1934. 

It was brought to the attention of the department for the Ori- 
ental Rite of this Congregation of the Propagation of Faith, that 
the priests of this rite, who immigrate to America or other regions 
in order to render spiritual assistance to the faithful of their - 
nationality, sometime, on account of the small number of those 
faithful, are either idle or collect daily alms not having for this 
canonical permission, or give themselves to the medical art or bu- 
siness not withot grave scandal of the Christian people and what 
is worse they do not need properly issued admonitions of the bish- 
ops. Moreover, it is deplorable that not once they exhibit to the 
Chancerys testimonial letters of their own Ordinary written in the 
Oriental language not known in thessaid regions, it is impossible 
for the Ordinaries to discover whether exhibiting the said letters 
is a Catholic priest freee of any censure or laden with it; or a 
schismatic, or even a simple layman producing false documents. 


Wishing to bring a proper remedy to this evil, this sacred 
Congregation has written, with the approval of the Holy Father, let- 
ters to the Oriental Prelates, ordering them not to assign any 
priests ( who must be celibates or widowers) without permission of 
the local Ordinary "ad quern"; that these priests should not leave 
the place before informing in writing this Sacred Congregation to 
which diocese they are planning to go to establish their domicile, 
that they should obtain permission from this Sacred Congregation, 
for every single case ; that having received such, they should pre- 
sent themselves before the Ordinary to whose jurisdiction they 
should be subject, and that they request from him necessary facul- 
ties to perform sacred duties, and that they show to him the let- 
ters of release from former superior signed by the Apostolic Nuh- 
tio or Delegate, with strict prohibition to collect alms without 
proper faculties remaining in force; that if something is done to 
the contrary the same priest should not be admitted to the exerci- 
se of the Sacred ministry. 


Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the 
Faith, May 1, 1897. 

In North American Church provinces, in which there are many 
faithful of the Ruthenian rite, let the Archbishop of each provin- 
ce, having taken advice of his suffragans assign some commendable 
for his celibacy and ability, Ruthenian and in case of a shortage, 
Latin rite priests, acceptable by the Ruthenians, who will exerci- 
se supervision and guidance over the people and clergy of said ri- 
te, however under the total dependence on the local ordinary, who, 
according to his discretions will grant himthe faculties, which be- 
fore God he will judge are fitting. 


Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Propagation of the 
Faith for the faithful of the Ruthenian rite living in Canada Au - 
gust 18, 1913. 

Art. 10. Since there are no Ruthenian priests either born or 
educated in Canada, the bishops of the Ruthenian Rite, with previ- 
ous understanding of the Apostolic Delegate, will do everything to 
establish as soon as possible a seminary for the education of the 
Ruthenian clergy in Canada. In the meantime Ruthenian clerics may 
be admitted, with a consent of the Ordinary to the Latin seminaries. 
However, let those be admitted to the seminary, either now or in - 
future, who will promise before the bishop, that they will observe 
always celibacy ; and for the exercise of the sacred orders in the 
Canadian region, only celibate will be able to be promoted. 

Art. 11. Let only those priests be admitted to the exerci- 
se of the sacred ministry among the faithful of the Ruthenian Rite . 
who are either celebate or widowers without children, who excel 
with blameless life, zeal and piety, sufficiently educated, not a- 
vid of pecunary gain and alienated from political factions. 

Decree of the Sacred Oriental Congregation "Cum data fuerit" 


for the faithful of the Ruthenian Rite in the United States of N. 
America March 1, 1929. 

Art. 12. If any Ruthenian mission, vacant or newly estab - 
lished, is to be provided with a rector, let the bishop, untill - 
there is sufficient number of the Greek Ruthenian priests, who we- 
re educated in the United States, request through the offices of 
the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church, the priests from 
the bishops of the Greek Ruthenian Rite of Galicia or Hungary or 
Jugoslavia, and to the priest who arrived there on his own account 
without being invited by any Greek Ruthenian bishop or being sent 
there through the offices of the Sacred Congregation, Greek Ruthe- 
nian bishop cannot grant any faculties to say Mass or administer , 
the Sacraments or perform any ecclesiastical duties. However, as 
was several times decreed, the priest of the Greek Ruthenian Rite, 
who wish to come and stay in the United States of North America, , 
must be celibate. 


Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Greek Ruthenian Rite 
for the faithful of this rite in Canada, May 24, 1930. 

Art. 15. In regard to the priests who are coming from the 
European region to exercise sacred ministry among the faithful of 
the Ruthenian Rite , they ought not be admitted unless they were - 
celibate ( or atleast widowers without children) excelling with 
blameless life, zeal and piety, sufficiently educated and alienat- 
ed from political factions. 

Canon 132 

2. Although celibacy is better and more useful for the cle - 
rical state, minor clerics may enter marriage, however, in the 
church where the law of celibacy of the clericals prevailing, they 
fall out by virtue of the law of the clerical state, unless their 
marriage was invalid on account of violence or fear inflicted to 

After the said by the Apostolic See, we cannot do anything else 
only to give the Head of our Church and be calm because the High- 
est Church Authority of our Greek Rite Catholic Church, the Aposto- 
lic See decided, finally. 

Basil Takacs , Bishop. 


Pastoral Letter July 15,1932 
No 77-1932 

The clergy and the faithful are well aware, that the local E- 
parchial Tribunal of August 31, 1931 had resolved its law proceed- 
ings in this matter of our two priests, which was ordered by this 
Eparchial Ordinariate, on account of their disobedience .The result 
is a sad case, because Fr. Orestes Chornock former Pastor of the St. 
John the Baptist Church in Bridgeport, Conn. , and Fr . Stephen Varzaly 
Pastor of St. Nicholas Church, in New Castle, Pa, , the Chief Editor 


of the Amerikansky Russky Viestnik were sentenced strictly , accord- 
ing our Tribunal. : 

1. Deprived of their office and position. 

2 . Forbidden to wear clerical garb , consequently they are 
forbidden to celebrate any services in church, and are deprived of 
all priestly privileges. 

On the foundation of the prescribed Canon Law, the appealing - 
of our Tribunal decision," was sent to the Sacred Congregation of 
the Eastern Church. Which January 27, 1931 No. 684-1931, appointed 
the Philadelphia, Pa., Archdiocese Tribunal endowring them with all 
rights and full power, to judge and bring a judgement in criminal 
cases of Fr.s Orestes Chornock and Stephen Varzaly. 

His Eminence Card . Daugherty , Archbishop of the Archdiocese of ' 
Philadelphia, Pa., by the full power and order of the Apostolic See 
of April 25, 1931 has established his Diocesan Tribunal of members 
as follows: 

Rt. Rev. Msgr. H.L.Lamb,D.D. ,Prot.Apost. (Officialis) . 

Rev. Francis J. Brennan, D.D., J.U.D. 

Rev. Joseph A.M. Quigley, A.M., J. CD. 

Rev . Edward A . Lyons , CD., J. CD. 

Rev. Vincent L. Burns, A.M., J.CB. (Col. Judges) 

Rev. Patrick A Collis , Ph.D. (Promotor of Justice). 

Rev. Thomas J. Kelly, (Actuary) . 

The Archdiocesan Tribunal announced its final and written deci- 
sion in the case of Fr. Orestes Chornock and Fr. Stephen Varzaly , 
published it June 10,1932 in Philadelphia, Pa. , No 215,216, 1932 on 
the foundation of: 

Having done everything possible, what the law requires, it was 
proposed this day to the Sacred Metropolitan Tribunal to resolve - 
the question in doubt: 

In the sentence of the first instance to be confirmed or chang- 

To the first part affirmatively: 

To the second part negatively 

" Omnibus quae de iure erant explenda peractis, questio hac die 
ab hoc S. Tribunali Metropolitano solvenda proponitur sub dubio". 


Quare propositio dubio respondents : 



The first decision of the local Eparchial Tribunal is approved 
in its fulness, so Fr.s Orestes Chornock and Stephen Varzaly are 
condemned : 

1 . Deprived of their office and position . 

2. Forbidden to wear clerical garb, consequently they are 
forbidden to celebrate any church services and are deprived of all 
priestly privileges. 

Beside this they are to pay the Tribunal expenses. 

The decision in the matter of Orestes Chornock Cornak and Ste- 
phen Varzaly according the Canon Law at present has its full and 
final legality. Because a higher Juridical appeal in the cases can- 
not be given (vidi Canon 1880-4, 1902, 1.). 

May our Heavenly God the Father grant, that by this Courts fi- 
nal judgement our former priests may see the spiritual abyss, in 


which they are, and be enlightened by the Holy Spirit, to return - 
to the road of penitence, and with this they would show all the 
faithful an example of filial obedience to the Church Authority. 

July 15, 1932 Basil Takacs , Bishop. 


A.R.V. August 3,1932 

Msgr. Gabriel Martyak, Chairman. 

All the members were present except Fr. Michael Andre jkovics - 
who was sick, also William Gvozdjak was not present. 

BASIL SLIVKA: It was reported in the newspaper that according 
the Pastoral Letter of Bishop Basil Takacs, that the clergy must 
resign from the office of committee. Being that this question is 
very important and the people are restless. We are asking the 
clergy who are present to clarify this matter to us, especially , 
what are they going to do ? 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA: replied to Basil Slivka; The Bishop issued 

a Pastoral Letter, in which he forbade the clergy to be on the com- 
mittee of the K.O.V.O. Later on Fr . Joseph Hanulya spoke in detail 
about the Committee question and the possibility of the clergy co- 
operation, if they would resign. With such an order the bishop is 
trying to undermine the validity legality of the clergys work in the 
committee, from the standpoint of the Canon Law. By all means - we 
must save this legality, because, it is necessary to send a commit- 
tee to Rome, two priests or layman, or one priest and one layman. - 
Who would present our unjustice at the proper places and present 
the petition of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin people to the Pope of 
Rome. But, if all the clergy be disqualified by the Bishop, then it 
will be not possible to do so. Father explained the protocol of in- 
tervention in Rome and said that the clergy already had their meet- 
ing about this matter, to have a wiser move, because we must resign 
from the committee, to be free and above the bishops criticism, they 
to continue their work against celibacy, and against all harmful or- 
ders of the Eastern Rite Congregation. 

It is natural, when they resign, they place their responsibili- 
ty on the bishops shoulders. Who is forcing the clergy members re- 
signation. The bishop is opening the door to unpleasant circumstan- 
ces . 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA: I was watching the situation with open eyes 
and I am aware, that the people are bitter. In the Episcopal resi- 
dence they cannot or do not want to recognize the sad situation. The 
question is not only the future of the Eparchy, but also the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church in Union with Rome. 

I am not trying to excuse myself or the clergy, when I am recom- 
mending the resignation of the clergy from the comma ttee, but, by 
all means means only temporarily. I am repeating: that I cannot nor 
other clergy cannot take upon themselves responsibility for the ac- 
tivity of the committee, which from the present day on, will have 
only laymen as members. For the consequences the bishop will be re- 
sponsible. The clergy still can continue their work against celiba- 
cy. If the committee would be in need of advice to enlighten them 
concerning the Canon Law. These committeemen are not against reli- 


gion, Church, on the contrary , the goal of this committe is the 
good of the Church. 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA read a prepared document, which he intends 
to present to Bishop Basil Takacs and all the Church Authorities - 
in concern. 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA asked the members present to express - their 
opinions about the resignation of the clergy committee from their 

JOHN POPP, President of the Sokols - Sojedineni je , made the fol- 
lowing remarks. The resignation of the clergy from the committee 
will be a great blow against the committee and the people. I hope 
that as the delegates of the last Convention of the Sojedinenije 'i- 
nited, so 'can the clergy and the people unite, to reach their goal 
of inviolability of the Eastern Rite against Latinization. 

When the people are aware, that the clergy are with them, that 
the clergy are not afraid to stand by them. Then, the people are 
ready to fight and bring immense sacrafices. The people always de- 
tested clergy, who in trouble times left them on account of some 
reasons . 

The people highly value those priests whom they elected at the 
Sojedinenije Convention to be members of the K.O.V.O. Committee, be- 
cause they are aware that these priests are friends of the people, 
are with the people and are taking their part in the fate of the 
people. The resignation of the committee from the K.O.V.O is begin- 
ning to bring bitterness and restlessness among the people. The re- 
signation cannot be explained, to satisfy the people. We do not 
know where could this road lead us without the patronage and lead- 
ership of the clergy. 

We laymen, when we see injustice that our laws to be destroyed 
we do not think about paragraphs, but, against force we will - an- 
swear with force. If the bishop wants the people to leave Rome 
sooner in a group. That is what the bishop proved by forcefully 
tearing away the faithful clergy from the committee membership. 

I am against the clergy retreat and am reminding the present - 
clergy, that not one of the lay members cannot and will not guaren- 
tee the bishop, nor the clergy, that this struggle will not be more 
rude, harsh and limitless. Please do not retreat 

BASIL SLIVKA: Energetically condemn the stand of the clergy who 
were aware at the Convention, that the bishop will not permit them 
to be members of the committee. The resignation of the clergy from 
the committee, is not only dangerous, but provoking a greater dang- 
er. The clergy should not resign from the committee, but must stand 
by the people, regardless what happends , because this is a request 
of the Church and peoples interest. The bishops authority, ill 
will is shown again, when he is forcing the clergys resignation 
from the committees post. With this the bishops aim is to present 
the committee as a group of rebels, who want to destroy the Church. 
For this attitude the bishop will be responsible before God - and 
the people. If the committee of laymen will speak sharply not on- 
ly'against the bishop, but even against the clergy, who are afraid 
to stand by the people. My request is that the clergy remain on 
the committee. 

DR. ALBERT M. CMOR : remarked, the committee members were elec- 
ted at the Convention, how can the committee releave them of their 
obligation of their office, which they accepted at the Convention. 


If a member of the committee resigns as a member, on account of a- 
ny reason, he will be responsible to the people for his deed. 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA: said, that such a move is necessary the - 
reason being to defend the legal character of the clergy movement, 
against celibacy. I do not think that the committee has done any- 
thing illegal. I disagree with that statement, that by the resigna- 
tion of the clergy, the committee becomes illegal. Here we are con- 
cerned with the security of- laws and privileges of the Eastern Ri- 
te, to defend such a move, not only the bishop has such a right 
but, even every individual, who is a member of the Eastern Rite 
Church. The people, clergy , even the bishops were defenders - of 
the Eastern Rite according the history. Therefore the clergy by - 
no means will be more legal if they resign from the commit tee. Such 
move by all means will lessen the trust confidence of the people - 
in the clergy, which clergy will not be strong anough with - the 
people to interveen more successfully in this matter. Secondly the 
people will not be stronger if the clergy will work separately the- 
ir work . 

I am repeating, that the committee, has no right to stress the 
matter of the resignation of the clergy from the committee, that is 
their personal matter. They must fulfill their obligation accord- 
ing the instructions of the Convention. I am still asking the cler- 
gy to talk the matter over among themselves, to find a way to re- 
main members of the K.O.V.O. committee. 

JOHN POPP: I also ask the clergy to stress the matter over , a- 
mong themselves. 

DR. GEORGE VARGA: I am confidant in the clergy members of the 
K.O.V.O. committee. I am aware of their gravity of their hardship, 
because from one side, what will the people say and the other side 
is the forceful un justice move of Bishop Basil Takacs.I am trembl- 
ing, when I think that the clergy wish to resign from the K.O.V.O. 
Committee, as a jurist, I am aware that we have to keep somekind 
of a law, regulations in the intervening, especially when we are - 
intending to send a Committee to Rome. Where they are very cocern- 
ed about formality. Not to harm the delegations success, I am a- 
ware of the right attitude of the clergy members, but I still in- 
sist and petition the clergy, let not all the members resign, be- 
cause their absence could cause great bitterness in the people ,- 
which we cannot stop, nor do we wish to hold back, when we see 
that the clergy in their situation are afraid, to appear with the 
people. I do not wish to burden the clergy, if they think so, that 
the interest of success in this struggle for the Eastern Rite is 
better to resign, let them do so, if their conscience says so. I 
am convinced that the clergy will cooperate with us, not publicly 
but secretly. The clergy stated that even if they will resign 
from the K.O.V.O. Committee by being threatened by the bishop, 
they will continue to fight against the introduction of celibacy 
and for the goal for which the committee was established. 

PETER KORPOS : I do not see anything good in such a statement, 
because the secret sympathy does not inspire no one . The resigna- 
tion of the clergy from the K.O.V.O. Committee, will displease 
the spirit of the people and hamper their work. We the laymen, are 
well aware, how do the people think and speak. We can foretell , 
that the resignation of the clergy from the K.O.V.O. committee, - 
willbe harmful to those who resign. Furthermore the people will 


become bitter and loose faith in the clergy. From such a good de- 
ed, there is no exit. If the clergy by all means will resign from 
the K.O.V.O. comittee, that is their affair, but such a move will 
give the lay committee a freehand. The Church Authority will have 
to think over the matter, if it wishes to fulfill the requests of 
the people, and let the clergy lead the action of the committee ac- 
cording the Church Law. It is a suprising matter, the Church Au- 
thority is repeatedly showing its illogical thinking, demanding 
from the clergy their resignation, and at the same time, not say- 
ing a word about the lay committee. If this committeeship is so e- 
vil and illegal for the clergy, then it cannot be good for the lai- 
ty. On the contrary it is more dangerous for the laity. In the in- 
terest of saving souls, the Church Authority should of reminded al- 
so the lay committee of the K.O.V.O., that such a deed is not per- 
mitted even for them. This is a proof that the Church Authority is 
not concerned with the salvation of souls. If such a lay committee 
can be, the more it should e for the clergy. It seems that the aim 
of the Church Authority is to destroy, weaken this committee. My 0- 
pinion is that it would be better for the clergy to remain as mem- 
bers of the K.O.V.O Committee. 

GREGORY ZSATKOVICS :I am the same as my late father, who was a 
faithful son of the Greek Rite Catholic Church, he would never ag- 
reed with those who would try to damage the old laws and privileg- 
es of the Eastern Church Rite.. I have reminded the Bishop about 
the danger, which could cause a rapid current against the Eastern 
Rite. We must defend our rite, that is our obligation. At the same 
time I must state, that the struggle must proceed legally, i.e. we 
must use legal methods. No matter how unhopeful is the situation,, 
I still believe, that there is a way by which we can continue our 
general struggle, the defence of the Eastern Rite, to gain our go- 
al with lesser sacrifice, to become victorious. 

I am lamenting over the limitless bitternes of the Church Au- 
thority and the defenders of the Eastern Rite, in time when cold 
blooded thinking is necessary in this struggle, we are causing gra- 
ve wounds on both sides, whereas we are well aware, that in this - 
struggle only united strenght can gain for us our goal. This obliga- 
tion of the censors is to give an enlightening explanation of ar- 
ticles which appeared in the newspapers. 

Fr. STEPHEN VARZALY : I wish to explain the spreading of our - 
struggle and reflect on the interpellation of Gregory Zsatkovics - 
by giving an explanation.. The question of legality were done step 
by step during the struggle against celibacy. The trial of intro- 
ducing celibacy is illegal, from the standpoint of the clergy and 
laity of the Greek Rite Catholic Church. Secondly as an editor of 
the Sojedinenije organ I am obligated to defend the Eastern Rite. 
I have done that and will continue to do it. The confidence of the 
past Sojedinenije Convention convinced me, that 100 percent of the 
people condemns celibacy, and all those who are the enemies of the 
Eastern Rite. 

FR. ORESTES KOMAN : The committee of the K.OV.O. are one sided 
in the Amerikansky Russky Viestnik. I am calling the attention of 
the censors, to be very careful to five serious explanations to in- 
struct the readers. Concerning the resignation of the clergy com- 
mittee from the K.O.V.O., I feel that we can continue our activiti- 
es more freely if the clergy resign, the lay Committee too will be 


more freeer in the struggle. 

DR. PETER IV. ZEEDICK: The struggle should be publicized and - 
all the members of the Sojedinenije and readers to be told the 
facts in the Amerikansky Russky Viestnik . Such information will be 
beneficial to us and to others, to instruct them about the histori- 
cal facts concerning our Eastern Rite.. Then the world will judge 
us according the facts and documental proof. Such facts must be 
published by all means. I also recommend to publish in English and 
Rusin language the "Dissertation of KALMAN ZSATKOVICS, titled: "JA- 
GERSKOJE VLIJANIJE" ( The Eger Influence) , and other historical - 
sources, which carry the interests of the Eastern Rite laws and 

FR. MICHAEL M. STAUROVSKY: No one of us can order anyone what 
to do or not to do, not to resign if he wishes to do so. If some - 
members of the committee are convinced that for the successful in- 
terest in the struggle, it is better for them to resign from the 
K.O.V.O. Committee, we cannot hold them by force to remain members. 
I thought over the matter seriously, from my point of view without 
judgeing those who have different views and think differently. The 
field of activity of this committee is such, that it is a danderous 
move for the clergy to leave the K.O.V.O. The priests must stay 
with the people as long as possible, especially then, when the 
faithful are interested in Church affairs, matters. It is also de- 
sireable, that the clergy be with the faithful even then, when ci- 
vic matters are in concern, by which the Church members can bene- 
fit materially and morally. I still recommend to the committee to 
stress the matter of the clergy resignation, as the clergy declar- 
ed we are doing it so in the interest of success in this present 

PETER I~v. MACKOV: If the people will find out about the cler- 
gy resignation, that will be a great shock to their spirit and con- 
fidence. They will not believe, that if the matter would be presen- 
ted to the Church Authority in its reality and actuality what 
could the consequences of such moves be , that the Church Authority 
would not permit the clergy to be on the committee. I have a re- 
quest of the clergy, to find a way to remain in the K.O.V.O. Com- 

GEORGE PUHAK: Do not believe in false talk, that I do not ag- 
ree with the celibacy struggle. I am and will be against any acti- 
vity which is destroying the Eastern Rite of belittleing the laws 
and privileges of it. If the clergy want to resign from the K.O.V. 
0. Committee, we cannot stop them to do so. That is their matter 
and will, even if we feel sorry and sad about it. We must under- 
stand that in such a struggle, as in all other struggles, not on- 
ly one side suffers, but both sides, who are taking part in it. - 
According my opinion it would be an ideal act or the clergy if 
they would remain in the K.O.V.O. Committee, but if they to decide 
the contrary, we cannot stop them 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA: Here we are concerned with the opinion of 
the committee members and not the decisions, because the clergy al- 
ready decided to resign in the interest of success , but they want 
to know the opinions of other members . 

JOHN LAPUTKA: I condemn the resignation of the clergy therefore 
I am asking the clergy to think the matter over once more, because 
such a move will cause deeper bitterness among the people. How can 


the clergy be more successful in their work, without the people? 
what do the clergy mean, wjoen they say that they can act more 
freely in their activities ? Who will give them advise when the 
people will need it at that time in important matter. How will it 
be possible to calm the people, the people are happy now, that the- 
re is an organization which was established honorably, according 
the will of the people, in which group there are laymen and cler- 
gy. These are the problems and burdens of this struggle, which es- 
pecially should interest the clergy, who would give a good examp- 
le with their decision that they will not resign. 

. FR. CONSTANTINE AUROROFF : I am concerned with the announce- 
ment of the clergy, which was published in the last issue of the 
Amerikansky Russky Viestnik. It is very important in this struggle 
which the Carpatho Rusin Greek Rite Catholic people are continu- 
ing for the Greek Rite Catholicism in principio. I agree that it 
is necessary to give the clergy, who wish to resign from the K.O. 
V.O. , a free hand, but from the practical point of view, I do not 
deem it a good deed, a good move. There is a guarentee in the 
words of Fr. Joseph Hanulya, that the resignation of the clergy 
committee will not harm the struggle . 

MICHAEL YUHAS2,SR. : I disagree with the clergy who wish to re- 
sign from the K.O. V.O. committee. They are to find a way to remain 
on the committee of K.O.V.O., which is existing by the will of the 
Convention. I as the Sojedinenije President must keep the will of 
the people and the Convention, accept no arguments which are con- 
trary to the decision of the Sojedinenije members. 

Continued: June 19,1932 A.R.V. August 25,1932 

pp. 8-11. 

MIKITA: Bishop Basil Takacs does not consider himself to be 
our bishop, but a Roman Catholic Bishop. I do not believe that Bi- 
shop Takacs under such circumstances can make progress among us 
Bishop Basil Takacs lost his good standing among us , therefore 
there is no future for him among us . 

FR. GEORGE THEGZE: Energectly refute the accusation, that he 
is a member of the Celibacy Party, by saying I am against celiba- 
cy and recommended to send protests against celibacy to the Apos- 
tolic Delegate or Rome . 

DR. GEORGE VARGA: Logicly proved that the Sojedinenije has 
the right to indulge in Church matters concerning the defense of 
our Church Laws, Privileges and intelligently to criticize the 
Church Authority. 

To prove that the Union was concluded, tied, by our forefath- 
ers and the Roman See , allowed this , he presented a quotation 
from an , undiniable source, proving that our Church laws and privi- 
leges were secured by our forefathers in the contract of Union . 
There is therefore a possibility to overcome celibacy . 

I recommend that the Sojedinenije Convention for the last ti- 
me, through its committee ask the Church Authority, if it will gi- 
ve the people a 100 percent guarentee, that from now on it will 
secure for us the Church Laws , privileges. If the Church Authority 
will not do that, then a committee be selected to deliver a peti- 
tion to Rome. In this petition the people will request the guaren- 
tee of all our laws and privileges. In the petition will be refu- 


sed by Rome , then the ten men committee , the defenders of the Eas- 
tern Rite, will engage in spreading the struggle in Rusin, Russian 
English newspapers to receive an answer to a question: what is mo- 
re important obligation of Rome : the introduction of celibacy or 
the salvation of souls ? 

The Convention accepted the proposal 

HARRY SAVULAK: Celibacy in the first step against our Eastern 
Rite. Our Greek Rite Catholic Bishops in Galicia were requesting - 
the introduction of celibacy. Without celibacy our Eastern Rite - 
Church cannot be destroyed. It is said, that the High Church Hie- 
rarhy of the Latin rite respects the Eastern Rite. On the contrary 
it always works against the Eastern Rite laws and is 
pitiful that Bishop Basil Taka cs is accompaning the enemies - of 
our Eastern Rite. Where is our Carpatho Rusin clergy ? Why are they 
not in the struggle, when the people are in need of fighters, lead- 
ers in the struggle. Why is the majority of the clergy without a 
feeling towards the peoples requests ? 

The debate will continue tomorrow. 

Dr. A.M. Cmor, Rec. Sec. 
Victoria Dzmura Michael Savko Mary Kopka Fr. Orestes Roman 

SESSION June 21, 1932. 8.30 A.M. 

FR. JOHN KRUSKO: Presented a request of the "Sokol Convention" 
to admit the "Sokol" delegates to the Senior Convention, during the 
time of celibacy debate. 

MICHAEL YUHASZ SR. : Chairman nominated a committee to invite 
the "Sokols" who will be permitted to speak up on the celibacy que- 

TURANCIK : I praise Dr. George Varga for struggling whole 
heartedly against celibacy and declaring that he is 100 percent a- 
gainst celibacy. I also hereby am reminding the delegates, to be 
careful what they say, because among us are many who claim to be 
against celibacy, but are mixing up the delegates in matters which 
could cause trouble for us . 

SEMANlSlN: I am requesting an Ecclesiastical Congress in which 
the clergy and people take part. I am against celibacy. 

KUZMJAK : Here in the United States of America the people must 
have more to say in Church matters, because they are the supporters 
of the church. The Bishop must admit that. But if there are some a- 
mong us who wish to pay, obey and have no rights, they are the ene- 
mies of the people. Why didnt the Whiting, Indiana parish protest a- 
gainst celibacy ? 

FR. GEORGE THEGZE: The delegates would not listen to his reply. 

PALUHANl6 : I am 100 percent against celibacy. 

PETER KORPOS : The president of the Cantors Brotherhood: let us 
not talk but act. Two delegates are to be sent to Rome, wait for 
the guarentee, respect of our Church laws, privileges and tradi- 
tions. Until then we are to keep the "PASSIVE RESISTENCE" against - 
the Church Authority and not to colaborate with it. 

DR. PETER Iv. ZEEDICK : The struggle against celibacy still 
continues, the attacks against the Eastern Rite always existed and 
were the personal jeleousy of the Latin clergy and bishops. 


All those among us who are great defenders of celibacy do not up- 
hold their principle in practice. We do not have the necessary - 
books to enlighten the public, who are interested in such matters 
I recommend the continuation of the struggle with united strenght 
to gain our full power and inviolability of our Eastern Rite. 

JOHN POPP: Bridgeport, Conn. : The cause of our struggle is the 
Bishop, who did not think matters over well, by concealing the - 
truth, with a cover up, thinking that it will be possible to carry 
out the socalled reforms in our Church life. The bishop promised 
and testified with an oath, that he has full power, later he twist- 
ed this testimony. How can the people have confidence in the Bishop 
in such circumstances. Therefore it is necessary to continue the 
struggle. Bridgeport is 100 percent against celibacy. 

MOTLY : delegate from Braddock, Pa.,: In Braddock,Pa. 99 per- 
cent of the faithful are for the defense of our ecclesiastical and 
national laws . Due respect is to be given to Fr.s Stephen Varzaly, 
Orestes Cornak, Constantine Auroroff and Peter Molchany. Since we 
have a Bishop, there is no order in the Eparchy, because the Bish- 
op ignores the just requests of the people; he wants to - deprive 
them even in parish affairs. We are aware of that, that he wishes 
to introduce the Latin order instead of the Rusin order. 

GEORGE BRATKO: Brooklyn, N. Y. : Opposed celibacy 

STEPHEN STERENCHAK: My call to the Convention is step forward 
with strenght against celibacy, because this is only the beginning 
of unpleasant moves against our Eastern Rite. It is our obligation 
to defend the purity of our Eastern Rite. Select a committee which 
will continue the struggle against celibacy, and defend the inno- 
cently punished clergy. 

In case there is no success , let us send a delegation to the 
Patriarch of Constantinople. 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA: I protest against such a proposal 

FR. DESIDERIUS SIMKOW: The Irish Hierarchy is the cause of Our 
troubles. It is necessary to unite our strenght against them. 

Dr. GEORGE VARGA: Do not believe everything that some people 



Mary Yurko JOHN POPP. Dr. A.M. Cmor, Rec.Sec. 

Andrew Bellovics Andrew Sabo 

John W. Roman Helen Manko Michael Soltis. 

SESSION 1.30 P.M. 

DR. GEORGE VARGA: I am asking the clergy present, that they let 
us know and recommend to us a way to take, to gain our goal concern- 
ing our Eastern Rite. 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA: Yesterday I proposed that first of all we 
must stress the matter of celibacy through our debate. I am happy 
that I made that proposal, because now we are aware of the senti- 
ment of the people, and the thoughts of the delegates . The thoughts 
of the delegates were expressed. Among these thoughts were radical 
ones too, against which I have protested. True, that sometimes the 
radical thoughts are necessary, the opposers expect that, if the 
danger is Independency or Schism. I do not think, that such danger 


exists, but, if the concerned become very provocative, then that - 
person will be responsible, who did not take in consideration the 
sentiments of the people. The people are 100 percent against celi- 
bacy. I am calling those present who favor celibacy to declare it 
without fear before the Convention. Not one was in favor of celiba- 
cy. The celibates said, that our clergy or people have nothing to 
do with celibacy. The Eastern Church withdrew from the Western 
Church, concerning the rite - and discipline. What right do the peop- 
le have in the Church matters: It is necessary to remark, that in 
the United States the people are to receive the JUS PATRONATUS . How 
are we to get out of this trouble ? The Bishop is forced to force 
celibacy. Therefore we must find out from the bishop is he inclined 
to accept our help ? If yes, the matter is settled, because no one 
is against the bishop, person, the struggle is for ideas. Into this 
unfortunate position the Bishop was led by unconviencable people. 

My recommendation is that the Convention select 2-3 persons to 
speak with the bishop to find out his standpoint and invite him to 
the Convention . 

Concerning the "Cum data" and the past struggles, Fr. Eugene Vol- 
kay, who for the past 42 years is active in the United States of A- 
merica was mentioned praiseworthily . In the "Cum data" decree Pod- 
karpatska Rus, Czechoslovakia nor the United States of America are 
not mentioned. If there is a good will in the bishop, he could or- 
dain the married seminarians for the United States of America, Pod- 
karpatska Rus' and Czechoslovakia. But the bishop is pressed by the 
Latin rite clergy to the limit, in the interpretation of the mention- 
ed order for the Eastern Church. I hereby recommend the following - 
to be on the committee: Fr.s Gabriel Martyak, Desiderius Simkow, Ni- 
cholas Csopey, Dr. Peter Zeedick and Michael Yuhasz Sr. 

If the bishop will listen to the petition of the committee and 
accept our help, then it will not be necessary to speak about his 
authority in the newspaper, only about the matter in concern not 
the person, who is of a different opinion. Our secured laws will 
not be belittled by doing so. 

If the bishop would not be inclined, then start the PASSIVE RE- 
SISTENCE" by which he will understand our limited patience, - and 
would say beat me until you get tired. 

FR. MICHAEL STAUROVSKY: I do not agree with such resistence , es- 
pecially, when we are suffering for the past two years. So are our 
seminarians and clergy, as Fr.s Stephen Varzaly, Orestes Cornak, Pet- 
er Molchany etc. and our parishes are being destroyed. I am pro — 
testing against such a Passive resistence which gives full possi- 
bility to our adversaries to destroy our sufferers. We are obligat- 
ed to take the example of Constantine, go to the battle and lead 
the struggle of the good deed, firmly under the Cross on which it - 
is written "IN THIS SIGN YOU WILL CONQUER" We arc not to suffer only, 
but also to use methods and ways, which will shorten the struggle. 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA: We should inform the world about our truth. 
Select a committee of seven members, five from the Old Branch and 
two of the Sokols to compile a petition to Rome, bishop and govern- 
ment. This petition to be signed by all the delegates and the commit- 
tee to inform the "Sobranije" officials about the matter in concern. 
The meaning of the resistence is, that the bishop does not exist 
for us, it is necessary to support or accept orders from his autho- 
rity . 


Fr. Michael STAUROVSKY: I agree with such an explanation of - 
the "PASSIVE RESISTENCE". The "Nebesna Carica" condemns Fr.s Ste- 
phen Varzaly and Orestes Cornak, whereas we are aware that the 
reason of our pitiful situation is the money, which is sent to Ro- 
me by the Irish bishops, that is why they have such a great say 
so in many matters . 

GEORGE PUHAK: On account of historical and social reasons of 
celibacy, not only the people and the clergy suffer, but even the 
bishop . 

GREGORY ZSATKOVICH: Legal Advisor, The matter is clear for us 
we are all against celibacy. The struggle must continue until 
ful order is accomplished. I the son of Paul Zsatkovics, could 
not have any other kind a standpoint of view, only to be 100 per- 
cent against celibacy. I recommend that the five member committee 
go to see the bishop. 

MICHAEL YUHASZ SR. : I propose, that tomorrow the committee re- 
ad the questions, which they are to ask the bishop. Accepted. 

Mrs HLADIK: I propose, that we are to fight as the Homestead , 
Pa. people are fighting. 

ANDREW KVASNAK: I propose that Gregory Zsatkovics also be on 
the committee. 

FR. JOHN SOKOL: Presented flowers to the Convention with greet- 
ings . 

FR. ORESTES CORNAK: The struggle is still going on and the un- 
just persecution from the part of the bishop. I promise to conti- 
nue the fight. 

FR. CONSTANTINE AUROROFF : I assure the Convention that the 
struggle in defense of the Eastern Rite is a just struggle. 

FR. PETER MOLCHANY: The bishop is playing sinful politics and 
values the family interests of Fr. Valentine Gorzo more than the 
petitions and interests of parishes. The "Sobranije" is to be con- 
demned for her non-christian attitude. 

MICHAEL MACKOV: The Sojedinenije is very important in our 
struggle, therefore I recommend to continue the struggle with full 
strenght, for our Eastern Rite Church. We al-o must assure the dai- 
ly bread of our fighters . 

JOHN HIRAK: To show the un justice of the bishop, I present to 
you the case of the Homes tead, Pa. , church 

Helen Manko John W. Roman Dr. A.M.Cmor, Rec. Sec. 
John Popp Mary Yurko Andrew Sabo 


The "Svoboda" organization and the SS. Peter and Paul Church 
in Elizabeth, N.J. are requesting the following: 

1. The recall of celibacy. 

2. Lifting the suspension of the four priests. 

3 . Ordain the married seminarians . 

4. Have a Rusin National Congress. 

5. Remove all the unpopular persons from the Chancery Offi- 
ce, since they are the enemies of the Eastern Church. 

6. We are protesting against the violation of our Eastern 


The Chairman presented to the Convention Fr. Stephen Varzaly 
The delegates gave Father a standing ovation. 

FR. STEPHEN VARZALY: I will not speak about celibacy , other 
speakers had spoken well of this matter. I also wrote, all that 
I wished to tell the people. Here I wish to emphesize the role - 
of Michael Yuhasz Sr. and I played in the Church struggle, I am 
very happy seeing the delegates who unanimously are against celi- 
bacy . 

As you are aware, the enemies stated that this struggle is the 
work of a few trouble makers, i.e., Fr. Stephen Varzaly, Michael - 
Yuhasz Sr, Dr. Peter Zeedick, Dr. Albert Cmor and Dr. George Var- 
ga. It was proved that all mentioned fulfilled the wish of the - pe- 
ople and thir own conscience . I am very happy that not only the 
parishes protested, not only the meetings, but also all the peop- 
le through their delegates, who gave the death verdict to celi- 
bacy. According the thoughts of Fr. Joseph Hanulya, Fr. Michael 
Staurovsky, Dr. Peter Zeedick and Gregory Zsatkovics the grave 
for celibacy is dug, and a funeral service will be conducted. E- 
ternal rest will be sung for the celibacy and the enemies of the 
Eastern Rite, and Mnohaja i blahaja fita for the faithful sons 
of the people. 

I am reflecting on the speach of George Puhak, that he and 
his coworkers were unmerciful to the bishop. This is an ill in- 
tent, because the struggle continues, not against the person of 
the bishop, but for the ideal of the Eastern Rite. George Puhak 
must admit, that, that rather the people, clergy, laity , suffered 
unmercifully from the Church authority. The Church authority 
treated the fighters of the Eastern Rite as good for nothings. In 
the Pastoral Letter the officials of the Sojedinenije were prac- 
tically called thieves. As for the Chancery Office, some of the' 
Consul tors are the enemies of the people. 

Some claim, that Bishop Basil Takacs has a golden heart. Now 
he has a good chance to prove it, is his heart of gold, with facts, 
guarentees, because we cannot believe empty wotds and promises. 

I hereby request that the bishop: 

1. Remove the suspension from the suspended priests. 

2 . Ordain the four married seminarians . 

I as an Editor wrote out of love for the people and Church. 

MICHAEL MACKOV: proposed to sing "Vicnaja pamjat'" for celi- 

MICHAEL YUHASZ SR. I hereby describe the cause of the strugg. 
le and was the reason for the disorder, was, that the bishop - 
promises a lot, but, he does not keep his word, being influenced 
by self loving title seekers. I did not want to oppose the bish- 
op, but when the bishop or someone else requests, that I oppose 
my people, I will disobey and go with the people. 

I MICHAEL YUHASZ SR. request the following: 

1. Remove the suspension off the suspended priests. 

2. Ordain the married seminarians, not only at present, but 
always . 

3. A guarentee from the bishop that he will respect the 
rights and privileges of the Eastern Church 

4. The Convention to send a protest to the Eastern Congre- 
gation, to the Papal Secretariate, Card. Hayes, Card. Dougherty, 
to the Old country bishops and to the bishop of Hartford , Conn . 


The bishop should not listen to the betrayals. If the Bishop 
will not fulfill these honest requests, then we are forced to con- 
tinue the struggle. We also request the "JUS PATRONATUS". 

If the bishop will not fulfill our just requests, then we have 
no need for such a bishop. 

MICHAEL MACKOV : I am not blaming the bishop, but his office 
workers, whom we must remove, because we will not have peace until 
they will be in office of the Chancery. 

Dr. A.M.Cmor, Rec.Sec. 
Michael Volcko Anna Belekanic Peter Kost' 
Mary Tarkanic Mary chabalko John Havrilla 

SESSION JUNE 23,1932. 

The report of five member committee sent to Bishop Basil Takacs 
to secure the rights and privileges of our Eastern Rite Church. 

We the undersigned Committee members of the XXI Sojedinenije - 
and Vllth Sokol Convention of the Rusin American Brotherhood , last 
night had the privilege of meeting with Bishop Basil takacs, in To- 
ledo, Ohio in matters concerning celibacy. Our report is as follows: 

1. The Bishop is inclined to cooperate with us and support - 
the committee which was in charge of this matter, if the Sojedine- 
nije has an intention to go along with him, to have order and peace. 

2. On the recommendation of the bishop, the petition is to be 
made in two copies, the first the bishop will present to the Holy 
Father personally; the second to be sent to the proper place. But, 
the bishop cannot guarentee us success . Furthermore this can happen 
only in November, when the bishop will go to Rome to attend the Eas- 
tern Rite Bishop's Conference. 

3. The question of celibacy, suspension of clergy ordination 
of the married seminarians, cannot be in the same petition, each one 
should be presented separately. What the result of these petitions 
will be, no one knows. According the Bishop's opinion, we cannot ex- 
pect that all our requests will be fulfilled, but there is hope - 
that some will. 

a) The critical articles in the A.R.Viestnik must stop at - 
once; let Rome note the good intentions. 

b) Fr, Stephen Varzaly and A.M.Cmor and other writers must 
publicly recall their articles, in which they over stepped bound- 
ries , 

c) In Church matters peace must exist. Financial Passive Re- 
sistence, which exists for a long time, must stop, and the church- 
es must fulfill their obligation concerning the Eparchy. 

This true report is verified by our undersigned signatures: 

Fr. Gabriel Martyak Fr. Nicholas Csopey Fr. Desider Simkow 
Dr. George Varga Dr. Peter Iv. Zeedick 

After the report was given, A.M. Cmor declared: from the very 
beginning of the struggle in defense of our Church laws , privileges , 
special discipline, traditions and customs, I wrote continually in 
the A.R.Viestnik. According to my conscience my goal was to defend 
the rights in a true manner. I have not over stepped the boundries 


of respect. I wrote the truth according my convictions, my consci- 
ence without personality, anger and evil intentions, said only the 
truth in defense of laws, privileges of the Eastern Church. I will 
not recall a word of what I have written. Furthermore the Conven- 
tion may judge my articles, and I will bow to the request of the - 
Convention delegates the representatives of the people, but will 
never recall my articles. 

FR. STEPHEN VARZALY : I cannot recall my articles, which I wro- 
te out of conviction concerning the Eastern Church and against the 
anomaly, illegality of the Church Authority. My heart is full of 
sadness, when it sees, that the bishop does not want to understand 
the requests of the people. Instead of understanding the Sojedine- 
nije Conventions petition, the bishop is presenting impossible con- 
ditions. I wrote the truth in this struggle and defended the trea- 
sures of the Greek Rite Catholic church of the Rusin people, accord- 
ing my convictions. I am responsible for every word I wrote, which 
I will not recall. 

PETER KORPOS : In my articles I simply presented the decisions 
of the Cantors. I cannot belittle the Cantors Teachers by recall- 
ing my articles . 

JOHN LOIS: For all the articles which I placed in the A.R. Vi- 
es tnik, I take responsibility, as a faithful son of the Eastern Ri- 
te Church. I wrote under the pressure of my convictions. I will -' 
not recall my articles. 

BASIL SLIVKA: Neither will I recall my articles, I do not feel 
guilt for what I wrote. To recall my articles would mean, to refute 
the truth , That I will not do. 

MICHAEL YUHASZ SR. : There is no earthly power, which could com- 
pell me to freely recall my articles, which I wrote in the A.R. Vi- 
es tnik. No one can say that my articles were not thought about, or 
that they were foolishly written. I did not have any evil inten- 
tions, do not have, nor will have, for my articles. The love of my 
own, love of the truth, love of the Faith and holy traditions, has 
dictated every word of mine. When the people wanted me to say a 
few words, I said them truthfully, respectfully and conscientious- 
ly. I will remain until death, the same Greek Rite Catholic of the 
Eastern Rite, into which I was born. To act against my convictions 
would be a sin. I wrote my articles out of conviction, without sel- 
fishness or earthly favors, therefore I cannot recall my articles. 

DR. GEORGE VARGA: In the five member committee report there is 
no guarentee, no assurance of our Church rights, privileges. On the 
contrary, I can see the intention, to separate the people from the- 
ir defending leaders , martyrs . I propose the following plan for 
our future struggle. 

1. Do not support the Church authrity, because he is not our- 
s any more, he renounced our Eastern Rite its laws and privileges. 

2. Select a committee, which will continue the struggle on 
the pages of the A.R.Viestnik and the Russian newspapers. 

3. Compile a petition to Rome, let every delegate sign it 
Ask Metropolitan Andrew Septicky to present it to Rome . 

4. In October let the Ecclesiastical National Synod meet whe- 
re our future standing will be decided. 

5. I call on the people, through their delegates, to fight - 
to the last drop of blood, defending the faithful clergy, not to 
support the celibats, but the faithful defenders. 


DR. ALBERT M.CMOR: My articles had only love towards the suf- 
fering Rusin people. I propose to the XXI Sojedinenije Convention 
to order the A.R.Viestnik to continue a respectable struggle in de- 
fense of the Eastern Rite, and that the Sojedinenije continue to 
help the 1G person committee. May our position be more widly pre- 
sented to our Old-country Bishops, the Presov and Munkacs Bishops, 
begging them humbly to help us and interveen for us in places con- 

FR. NICHOLAS CSOPEY : I am fighting against celibacy for a long 
time. I fought against the "Ea semper" Bulla, during the reign of 
Bishop Soter Ortynsky. We succeeded, with the help of Bishop Soter 
Ortynsky to over come the harmful points of the Bulla except celi- 
bacy. An Ecclesiastical Synod is necessary. But, that could be pos- 
sible only with the cooperation of the bishop. Ask and it will be 
given to you, therefore we must ask continually until we are heard 
We must compile a petition and select a committee to do the work. 
To have such a committee is not against the Canon Law, especially 
then, when it is colaborating with the bishop. The Bishop, clergy - 
and the people can win. 

Fr. JOSEPH HANULYA: I urge us all to have an understanding - 
with the bishop and continue the struggle respectfully . I am also 
seconding the motion of Fr. Nicholas Csopey to find a way of cola- 
boration with the Bishop, who would act differently if he would 
not listen to one of his consul tors , but to the majority of the 
clergy. An Eparchial Synod is necessary, that would help the Bish- 
op to come to an understanding with the clergy and people . It is 
necesassary for us to have Eparchial Statutes as soon as possible. 
Canon Law is being prepared without the hearing of our Greek Rite 
Catholic clergy in the United States of America. We have no repre- 
sentative in Rome, where they are deciding about us. 

the committee to defend the Eastern Rite. 
The following were selected: 

Dr. Albert M Cmor John Laputka Fr. Michael Andre jkovic 
Dr. George Varga Msgr, Gabriel Martyak FR. Orestes Roman 
Michael Yuhasz Sr. FR. Joseph Hanulya Stephen Sterencak 
Dr. Peter Iv. Zeedick Fr. Stephen Varzaly Fr. George Chegin 
Peter Mackov Fr. M. Staurovsky William Gvozdjak 

Peter Korpos Fr. C. Auroroff Basil Slivka 
Gregory Zsatkovics Fr. D. Simkow John Popp 

Dr. A.M. Cmor, Rec. Sec. 
Session June 24. 1932 

Only Society matters were stressed. 



A.R.V. October 6, 1932 .p. 7. 
Most Rev. Gerald P. O'Hara 
Aux. Bishop of Philadelphia 
Vicar General 
1712 Summer Street 
Philadelphia, Pa. New Castle, Pa. Sept. 9, 1932 

Most Rev. Bishop: 

I was away and received your letter today. With utmost respect 
I have to inform you that at present time it is almost beyond my 
possibilities to fulfill the strict silence imposed upon me by the 
Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church. Most Rev. Basil Takacs 
has excommunicated me on 25th of August and ordered this excommuni- 
cation to be solemnly announced in all churches of the Eparchy. 

This act has created an entire new situation. In many places - 
the people left the church, when the priest began to read the Bish- 
ops letter. In most places the priests did not even try to read it, 
knowing that it will create disturbance in the parish. Hunderds of 
letters of protests against Bishop Basil Takacs are pouring into 
the Editorial Office of the A.R. Messenger, many of them demanding 
to severe all connections with Bishop Basil Takacs . Under the pres- 
sure from the people, because of the evident malevolance of Bishop 
Basil Takacs, I hardly can stay without a word. 

Bishop Basil Takacs, as comonly known, has proven himself ut- 
terly unqualified to govern our Eparchy. His past life with shadows 
of scandals and his recent activities full of partialities, unjust 
actions, must be criticized in the interests of our Eparchy, that 
is in danger of complete disorganization under his rule. All his 
actions are motivated with personal interests I realize the duties 
and obligations of a priest and I suffer terribly, because of the 
unhappy state of our Eparchy. But I am convinced that Bishop Basil 
Takacs is uncapable, unworthy of his high position. He is repeated 
ly abusing his high power which almost unlimited to the Canon Law 
The utter lack of faith and confidence to him forbids me to have - 
any conections with him. The people are the same way; he is hated 
by the people, he is dispised by the majority of the priests and 
his actions what ever they are not being taken seriously. And such 
a man is my accuser, and, at the same time my judge. What's more 
he is the executor of his own sentence passed by himself upon me . 
That is a very grotesque way of administering justice.. 

I will not change my role if something will not be done soon , 
because it is impossible to see how the living faith of my people 
usurped and crippled by a man who has no loyalty to his own Church 
and no prudence in his actions . 

Everything that has happened during my trials with me made me 
more and more convinced, that justice is something very hard to be 
found in the higher circles of the Roman Catholic Church. The Bish- 
op wrong or right, must always be right. There was sufficient time 
to clear up this affair. Bishop Basil Takacs reported to Rome, not 
on one occasion. An honest inquisition could have proven that the 
cause of the trouble is that he is unable to understand the duties 
of a bishop, his negative policy, his unsincerity, his frivolity - 
in serious matters. Everything is based upon cold formalities and 
not upon the essence of the plain truth, .... That's how I see - 
the deal I have received so far from him and from others places . 

How can I keep strict silence ? How can any man tortured accus- 
ed debased, beserched, say not a word ? If it were my own person - 
exposed to the iniquities, perhaps I could kill the expressions of 
my suffering. But here the whole Eparchy suffers and pray for deli- 
verence. Here hundreds of thousands of souls are in the gavest dan- 
ger, because of an uncapable bishop., who must be a mistake of the 


circumstances and tha-t mistake is terrible, because the bishop's 
position is exaltingly high. Bishop Basil Takacs does not know it. 
He does not realize this and his only motto: I have power ! He is 
drank with the sensation of his power, has forgotten , the use of it 
must be just, justifiable and prudent . 

From Your letter Most Rev. Bishop I read of a controversy that 
now exists between the Most Rev. Bishop Basil Takacs and myself 
I beg you with all my humbleness, with all my confidence to you , 
that this is not controversy, not at least a personal one. This is 
more than that. This is a fight for protection of the historical 
and traditional rights and privileges and discipline of the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church of Eastern Rite. The outcome of this fight 

must be satisfactory and just for the interest of theChurch. Bish- 
op Basil Takacs has sided up against those rights, privileges and 
discipline despising the sentiment of the people. Instead of hand- 
ling this matter with the greatest diplomacy and tact, he, drunk - 
with his power and blindly, following the advice of unscrupolous 
persons ( many of them infamous) , began the policy of terror 
against anyone, who was trying to tell the truth and give him cor- 
rect information. And step by step we came to excommunications of 
members of the Church, finally to the Church , finally to the excom- 
munications of priests. 

I am very sorry Most Rev. Bishop, if this letter might cause 
unhappy feeling in your good heart. But, what can you expect from 
me, who during the last two years lives in constant sorrow, becau- 
se the justice I am looking for., seems to be very very far 

Very humbly yours 

(Rev.) Stephen Varzaly 
Greek Rite Catholic priest 
Editor of the A.R.Viestnik 


No 2970 - i 

1811 Biltmore Street 
Washington , D , C . 

Reverend and dear Father: 

Complying with the orders of our Holy Father the Pope, the sac- 
red Congregation for the Oriental Church has instructed me to send 
the enclosed formula to all the priests of the Ruthenian diocese 
for the Podcarpathians in the United States, who are subject to 
the Most Rev. Basil Takacs. 

I am confident that you will unhesitatingly sign the formula, 
affix your seal and return the document to me as soon as you can. 

The disturbed conditions which prevails in your diocese has be- 
en, and still is, a source of anxiety to the Sacred Congregation 

His Holiness who cherishes your diocese, cordially wishes to 
put an end to the present unhappy state of affairs. 

The better and the more speedily to attain this end for the ad- 
vancement of the cause of religion and the welfare of your diocese 


and its faithful, it is proper, as I need not emphasize, that all 
the clergy thereof, without distinction or exception, should openly 
and unreservedly renew their pledge- of loyalty to the Holy See. 
Commending this important matter to your prompt attention 

I remain, with all good wishes 
Sincerely yours in Christ 

P.Fumasoni Biondi 
Archbishop of Docle? 
Apostolic Delegate. 


I the priest of the Greek Rite and 

member of the Greek Rite Ruthenian Subcarpathian Eparchy in the U- 
nited States of America, greatly regret that on account of the ne- 
furious instigations in our Eparchy the orders of the legitimate 
authority, even those of the Holy See are despised and attacked. 
By this declaration I wish state clearly that I abhore such line 
of action and that I disassociate myself entirely from it in order 
that nobody would even dare to accuse me maliciously of being a par- 
ticipant or promotor of this rebellion. 

Therefore, having in mind the well being of my Eparchy and of 
the souls entrusted to me, I profess myself a faithful subject of 
the Holy See and always ready to abide by the general and individu- 
al orders, decrees and decisions of the Roman Pontiff and their sub- 
stitutes, as of my legitimate Superiors, as well as by those on my 
Eparchial Ordinary, promissing to observe exactly their general and 
particular orders, as they were issued in the past, at the present 
and in the future, concerning the Universal Church or its part, espe- 
cially those which have to do with the Rite and the Eparchy to 
which I belong, namely all those ordinances contained in the Decree 
of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church "Cum data fuerit" 
issued March 1. 1929. 

I also solemnly promise that according to my power and with the 
help of God I will religiously try to hold back any attempts or in- 
stigation against the ecclesiastical authority, which should be o- 
beyed, in order that the blessed peace of Christ descend once more 
upon our beloved faithful and remain with them perpetually 

L. S. October 15, 1932 

Signature . 

Rev. Joseph P.Hanulya to the 

November 29,1932 
Your Eminence : 

In answer to your second request No 3367 i, I wish to state that 
the substitute Declaration signed by me and many other priests cover- 
s not only my opinion as to the affairs in the Pittsburgh Greek Rite 
Eparchy, but also my trustworthyP° sition as a member of that Eparchy 


and therefore it is my deliberated and considered wish that said do- 
cument be forwarded to the Sacred Congregation for the Church 
as it is . 

Kissing Your Apostolic Ring I am 

Your most humble in Christ 

Rev. Joseph P. Hanulya 

(Please report to Rev. Emil Kubek,Mahanoy City, Pa.) . 


Ego ritus Graeci sacerdos,dioceseos Grae- 

co Ruthenae Podkarpaticae Catholicae in Statibus Foederatis Ameri- 
cae Sepcentrionalis , ex animo doleo, me declerationem missam mihi 
Eminentia Tua tali in forma subscribere non pctuisse, sed volens sa- 
tisfacere benignae voluntati Tuae, hisce aperte et sine reservatio- 
ne declaro, me semper fuisse, esse et fore subditum fidelem Sanctae 
Sedis, propterea non possuir. intelligere, qua de causa repetitio iu- 
ramenti fidelitatis requiratur a me. 

Fui , sum et volo esse obediens omnibus et singulis mandatis,- 
decretis et iudiciis Romani Pontificis ,eiusque vices gerentiuir. 
spectantibus non solum Universalem Ecclesiam, sed presertim, vene- 
rantibus ritum, nee non disciplinam Orientalis meare Ecclesiae cir- 
cumscripta legibus huisce Ecclesiae, in primis Concilio Florenti- 
ne atque Unione Ungvarensi 14- a Aprilis 1649. 

Persuasus sum, concitationem in mea diocesi causatam fuisse co- 
natu introductionis consuetudinum omnio contrariorum legibus nec- 
non privilegiis Orientalis Ecclesiae. Nefarium characterem huius 
concitationis, ex quacumque parte, doleo. 

Sic paratus sum, Deo adiuvante, cooperari suportationi auctori- 
tatis ecclesiasticae, ut pax Christi beata in dilectos nostros fi- 
feles descendat et nobiscum perpetuo maneat 
Datum 25-a Octobris 1932 
Rev . s : 

George Hritz Michael M. Staurovsky 

Emilius A. Kubek Joseph Mackov 

Nicolaus Stulakovics Stephanus Gulyassy 

Joannes Krusko Nicolaus Burik 

Nicolaus Martyak Nicolaus Duda 

Paulus Staurovsky Theodorus Ladomersky 

Gabriel Martyak Anthonius Mhley 

Rudolphus Runtagh Joannes Koval 

Nicolaus Kristof Andreas Symko 

Arnoldus Suba Basilius Lipecky 

Demetrius Darin Paulus Mankovics 

Josephus Hanulya Joannes Szabo 

Emilius Nevicky Nicolaus Csopey 

Orestes Roman Alexius Vislocky 

Adalbertus Bihary Josephus Jackanich 

Alexius Bakajsza Theodorus Hodobay 

Desiderius Dubay Michael E. Lukats 

Vladimirus Kapisinsky Eugene Runtagh 


Judenius Berecky Nicolaus Petrik 

Demetrius Yackanich Emilius Semetkovsky 




Pamphlet 1932 

Holy Father : 

We the undersigned in our own name, and in the name of all tho- 
se who are forbidden to be present, are coming to Your Holiness 
with a complaint, that a grave un justice is done to coir Eastern 
Church, the clergy ,priesthood and our people .We are turning to You 
as the judge just, who is a fearless protector of the persecuted. 
Humbly asking Your Holiness's intervention, that the all kind of 
abuses, confiscations of rights, privileges, persecutions of laws, 
once for all be stopped. 


The Eastern Catholic Church is the equal part of the Catholic 
Church of Christ, which differs in RITE and DISCIPLINE, from the 
Western Church, part of this Church. 

The change of one of the characteristics is contrary and it de- 
stroys that part of the Church. Such an act is contrary to justice 
brotherly love, respect, antiquity and the intentions of all the 
Holy Fathers of Rome, announced in documents , with added anathema, 
upon who dare do anything to these particularities . 

With a deep sorrow considering the newest times, which instead 
of strenghtening, favoring the Easter Church, that bridge which 
would prepare the return of the fallen away brothers , everywhere is 
obstruction seen in our life. The newest trend of some of the lead- 
ers, do not make them Catholics, but Latins. 

Such an attitude causes an irrevocable provocation among all 
the Eastern Catholics and the unwillingness of the fallen away 
return to the Catholic Church. All such bitter feeling cannot be 
the goal nor method of the Vicar of Christ. It is not, and if such 
intention undiniably exists, then it is very harmful to certain 
fanatics, persons or groups for their temporary benefit and not - 
for the general good. That is to be stpped at once. 



The reason for the particularity of the Eastern Church in the 
United States of America is the treatment: that it is an American 
MISSION TERRITORY, upon which the Eastern Congregation is enpower- 
ed to set some kind of a new set of unusual orders. 

How can such an argument exist, when we can see such a trend 
not only in the United States of America, but also in Galicia the 
cradle of the Eastern Catholicism and Union. For the Western rite 
in the United States of America, there is NO MISSION TERRITORY .- 
Then how could it be for the Eastern Rite ? The present situation 
of the Eastern Church in the United States of America testifies, 
that it is not a MISSION TERRITORY, but permanent entity. 

Our Eparchy has 320,000 faithful, a bishop, 140 priests, as ma- 


ny parishes with filial churches. Some of them exist for the past 
30-40 years and are fully assured to exist. We have a Fraternal - 
Organization, the Sojedinenije consisting of 150,000 members and 
its worth is over six million dollars. The Sobranije has 19,000 
members, worth a half a million dollars etc. 

This year the SOJEDINENIJE is celebrating its 40th anniversa- 
ry, during which time it paid 16 million dollars in death and sick 
benefit, to its members. 

We also hava an Orphanage, which is in charge of the Sisters 
of St. Basil the Great. 

If we did not make a greater success, the reason is that we we- 
re considered MISSION TERRITORY and were treated in that manner. 

For many years we did not have our Hierarchy, we were subject- 
ed to the Latin rite bishops, who did not have any conception a- 
bout us. Furthermore, instead of establishing an Eastern Bishop - 
See with full jurisdiction. An Apostolic Visitator was sent to us. 
Following him a bishop without jurisdiction. 

The reason of such unfavorable, unsuccessful trials is, that 
rge Eastern Church is directed by the Congregation, in which the- 
re is not one Eastern person, nor Eastern spirit. 

Both of these reasons should been eliminated long ago. We humb- 
ly beg Your Holiness, to eliminate them at once. Then the Eastern 
Church will suprise the world with its great progress. Otherwise 
there will be a constant stumbling block for us. 

Maybe we are not thinking correctly, the United States of Ame- 
rica is still a MISSION TERRITORY for the fanatic Latin rite cler- 
gy, who instead of converting Protestants, Atheists, Unbelievers , 
praising themselves with the growth of the Catholic Church in the 
United States of America, converting the Easterners. 


After the unfortunate Schism of our forefathers (the forgotten 
ones) leaving the Universal Catholic Church. Conversions began and 
two Unions were accomplished. One in Brest with the Galician Rusin- 
s, approved by Pope Clement VIII, June 12, 1595, Bulla Magnus Do- 
minus and the second in Ungvar April 24, 1649 (1646 ?) , by the Uh- 
ro Rusins, approved by Rome June 8, 1655. 

With this we do not conceed to the celibats , that these condi- 
tions were not in the Unions, only the religious and moral ques- 
tions, whereas they say that these characteristics , specialities of 
the Eastern Church ,i.e., rite and discipline included. 

In these Unions the laws and privileges were mutually approved. 

a) they are not given "ad beneplacitum" , consequently they 
cannot be legal by one party to revoke or change. (Privilegium non 
cessat eais non usu aut usu contrario, nee abusu .Privilegia con- 
cessa alicui communicati dignitati. Locove renuntiare privatis - 
personis non licet.). 

b) They were not territorial, because in Yugoslavia, where 
no Union was made , they are in use . This means , whereever a Greek 
Rite Catholic Rusin went so went with him the inherited RITE and 
DISCIPLINE Of the Eastern Church. Consequently it did also go to 
the United States of America. Long ago, it was a principle, that 
the rite and discipline was adopted according the local Patriar- 
chate. Rite follows the Patriarchate . The faithful whereever they 


lived were subjected to the RITE and its DISCIPLINE. Two Bishop - 
Sees were not permitted in the same territory of different rites. 
The principle was changed, to oppose the principle, i.e. the Patri- 
archate is to follow the rite. Everyone is subjected to the dis- 
cipline of his rite, whereever he lived. What is more the Catholic 
Church holds, that the hostile nationals uniting should not mix, 
each nationality to belong to a separate Patriarchate (Copt and 
Melkite) and in Antiochia there are THREE EASTERN RITE PATRIARCHAT 
ES (Maronite, Melkite and Syrian.) . 

Only to us Rusins, who are in the majority among the Uniate - 
Churches, Rome did not permit a Patriarchate. True, Rome gave her 
bishops, whos power is limited. All this is done to break and de= 
stroy the majority, then the rest will follow the disapperance,or 
to be shown to the world as mummys . 

This is condemning the ignorance, lack of knowledge of the La- 
tin rite hierarchy of the United States of America, who do not - 
know a thing about our laws and privileges (or do not want to - 
know) and approves our right to live with in the United States. 

All the SOCALLED "MORAL SCANDALS" of our Latin rite brothers, 
were, nor are "SCANDALUM PUSILORUM" about what the moral remarks 
with condemnation. 


The Catholic Church acknowledges the custom consuetudo,if it 
is contineous for 40 years in public use . it not only becomes a law 
but it is the best interpretation of the law. (Consuetudo optima le- 
gum interpres . ) 

We the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins, here in the United States , 
have such a law of custom against celibacy, which law the Holy Fa- 
ther cannot disrespect. 

The first order of celibacy was given October l,1890.Fr. Eu — 
gene Volkay arrived on the United States of America March 26 1890 
a half a year earlier, he came to the United States of America with 
his wife and children, and since then he is here in the United 
States of America, continually living as a married man. After him, 
annually many married clergy arrived in the United States of Ameri- 
ca with their families. Many married seminarians were ordained to 
the priesthood in the United States of America, even during the ad- 
ministration of Bishop Basil Takacs. A contrary custom law, by law 
ceases ( Deseutitudine , i.e., conseutudine contraria legitima lex 
cessat.) ., si tamen maxima pars populi legem per longum tempus non 
observaret posset quis prudenter censeri a lege excusatus" (A. Arr 
regui par. 76.) . 

In the United States of America the married clergy were always 
in majority at least 75 percent, who were living with there wives 
and families, 13 percent widowers and only 12 percent of celibates, 
and monks . 

This is a proof that even if the agreement of the Union concer- 
ning the Greek Rite Catholics in the United States of America are 
reffered as MISSION TERRITORY, still, according the laws we have 
the right of customs consuetudo, for the married clergy which law 
we will not give up. 



The new Church Law does not permit the use of Patronage Law 
(Canon 1450) . But, through the establishing and supporting of the 
churches, before the new law came in effect, it will tollorate 
and presribe, that then the Patron selects the Pastor out cf three 
nominations, presented to him by the Ordinariate. 

We all are aware, that our Greek Rite Catholic Rusin faithful 
have established churches, schools and are supporting their pas- 
tors and cantors . 

It is natural, that our Rusin people in the Old-country noted 
that many a times persons of another Faith and nationality selec- 
ted a Pastor for them. The reason was that their ancestors gave 
financial support to the church. 

This law belongs to the good faithful . There is nothing to 
fear, the good faithful will always request the best Pastor for 


The Union of the Eastern Church has the following laws : 

a) Keep freely the Eastern Rite 

b) A bishop to be elected by the clergy and approved by the 
Holy See. 

c) Keep freely the Church customs and discipline. 

It is a pitty, that while the Holy See in one document appears 
as a guardian of Eastern Church, at the same time in another docu- 
ment especially in practice is contrary, it becomes an instrument 
to destroy the laws . . 

a) True, it is prescribed to guard the purity of the Eastern 
Rite and at the same time it permits, eases urge the transfer to 
the Latin Rite (Vidi: "Ea Semper" Bulla). If the people can easily 
leave their rite, who can defend that rite. ? 

b) The right to elect bishops, by sending Vicars, through a 
temporary trust of law to the "Apostolic Kings", i.e., permitted 
to be used by us and in time it is taken away from us . 

c) The newest move is to take away from us the marriage of 
seminarians, the right of the clergy to Confirm, and after that 
will take away the right to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the - 
peoples language, etc. etc 

The weak willed and title seeking traitors are used in this in- 
tention. They can be found everywhere and always. Through them be- 
gins division, struggle, by which the third party benefits. They 
care not that the Schismatics and Heretics do benefit many times.. 
"We do not care how many parishes are lost", is the slogan of the 
Bishops Chancery. Their authority is more important to them than - 
the salvation of souls. 

In Galicia there are two bishops (Stanislav, Peremysl) opposing 
their Metropolitan, who is faithfully defending the Eastern Rite 
and laws. Their example divides the clergy and the faithful - and 
schism, unbelief is growing. 

In the United States of America is also a division and strugg- 
le. Schism and heresy are waiting for its prey. On the ruins of the 
Eastern Church, Latinism is satisfied with even a little portion, it 


will celebrate the Eastern Catholicism ( with their seduction is 
broken. A sad and very pitiful celebration,. 


Since Bishop Takacs arrived in the United States of America - 
in 1924, all his activity was: 

a) To visit parishes", bless their churches or some church , 
articles, delivered a sermon, which was not cold nor warm. 

b) Transferred from parish to parish priests without a com- 
petition announcement, which was proven to be a terrible mistake. 

In the past 8 years, he was not concerned about the "Eparchial 
Statutes", to introduce law and order. 

He was not concerned about our schools, which was contrary to 
the requests of the Deanery meetings, not one school book was prin- 
ted. When he organized the Cantor teacher organization, that was 
done with the intention to make another enemy camp against the 
clergy, producing a state in a state. 

To elevate the spiritual life, he was not concerned about 
prayer-books for the children, youth and elders. Instead of having 
missions, he introduced the "Sacred Heart Service" directly to La- 
tinize the Eastern Church. 

He built an Episcopal Residence in an improper place, puting - 
the Eparchy in grave debt. At the present after paying on the prin- 
ciple and interest $ 82,000.00, still another $ 80,000.00 mortga- 
ge remains, and the property is not valued at half of that amount. 

Nothing was done to spread the mission activity (if it is a - 
MISSION TERRITORY, to convert those brothers who fell astray into 
schism, conver unbelievers, whereas the circumstances were never - 
as favorable as at present, nor will they be in the future. Now 
the Russian Missions are broken up into small groups, parishes. 

On the contrary, the consequence of the thoughtless moves, pa- 
rishes were lost in Clairton,Pa. , St. Clair, Pa. , East Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Passaic, N. J. , Newark, N.J. Chicago, 111., and even the Cathedral 
Church in Homestead, Pa. 

At present beside a few Sun-flower laymen, there is no parish 
no priest, no faithful, who are satisfied with the activities of 
Bishop Basil Takacs 


a) The bishop by his little knowledge and weakness, is influ- 
enced by European ideas, not willing to adjust himself to the Ame- 
rican setting and situation. (In 8 years he did not hecome a citi- 
zen, nor did he learn the English language.) . 

b) For his secretary, he invited from Europe Dr. Julius Gri- 
gassy, a greenhorn as himself, who prides himself with his diploma, 
knowledge, actually is blindened with dead paragraphs and is not - 
aware of natural logic of life. 

c) As a man, he is not for himself, nor others, he himself - 
is selfish, to others an unmerciful tyrant. A true personification 

to be the laws led by the Russian Tzarism and by him made 

subjugation of Orthodoxy. 

d) Another reason of his unactivity was, that Bishop Basil - 
Takacs came from Europe, obligated to the two Zsatkovics brothers 
of whom one became a Chancellor and the other Eparchial lawyer,... 


and from whom he could not free himself.. 

e) The main supporter defender of Bishop Basil Takacs be- 
came Fr. Valentine Balogh, whom Bishop Basil Takacs himself used 
to call a "moral corpse". Whatever these selfish advisors and 
helpers said, caused what is happening in the Eparchy. 


To cover up the unactivity of Bishop Basil Takacs, he became 
the wrestler exploiter introducing celibacy, which the Oriental 
Congregation wanted to introduce long long time ago. The Consul- 
tors advised him, that the people are not concerned about ciliba- 
cy only a few Presov clergy are opposing it, which can be taken 
care by suspension or a return to the Old-country. He believed 

The consequence of such an advice was that Bishop Basil Ta- 
kacs began: 

a) To request that every candidate petitioning to be ac- 
cepted in the seminary , must take a pledge in writing, that he 
will not marry. 

b) He refused to ordain married seminarians , who completed 
their studies. Sons of poor working labor people, who were accept- 
ed in the seminary without any restrictions concerning marriage 
namely: Basil Benyo, Corning, N.Y. (The Son-in-law of Fr.Emil Ne- 
vicky. Michael Cyberey, Trenton, N. J. , Joseph Mihaly, Bridgeport, 
Conn, and Michael Kanyuk, Freeland,Pa. , thus punishing the inno- 

1) The first one who received grave punishment, as an ex- 
ample to frighten others, not to oppose celibacy was Fr. Emil 
Nevicky, Miners ville, Pa. 

On the complaint of Bishop Basil Takacs to the Eastern Con- 
gregation that Fr. Emil Nevicky is agitating against celibacy, it 
requested that Bishop Paul Gojdics Eperjes) recall Fr.Emil Ne- 
vicky from the United States of America, which was done November 
26,1930. The agitation of Fr. Emil Nevicky was, that he, before 
a deanery meeting, wrote a few priests, to bring, propose and de- 
bate at the meeting the celibacy question. This could not be a 
transgression, because Basil Takacs himself said to many priest- 
s, that the clergy can debate and decide this question, only do- 
not get the people involved, in this matter. 

After the recall of Fr. Emil Nevicky Bishop Basil Takacs re- 
voked his jurisdiction, even to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, as 
somekind a criminal. Fr. Emil Nevicky although being innocent, 
stopped functioning and appealed. For nine months only the neigh- 
boring Galician priest substituted for him. It was expected that 
the faithful will drive out Fr. Emil Nevicky. The contrary hap- 
pened. The faithful had shown a better judgement, pacience, more 
interest, sympathy and help, than Bishop Basil Takacs. After ni- 
nemonths Fr. Emil Nevicky was rehabilitated by Rome. Bishop Basil 
Takacs instead of asking forgivness from the innocent, persecuted 
him, instead of compensating him fot his loss, because of an re- 
venge, he demanded an apology for misconduct from Fr. Emil Nevic- 
ky a good priest. 

2. The second example was Fr. Orestes Cornak, Bridgeport , 


Conn., who worked for the past 20 years with great success. 

His faithful found out about the order of celibacy May 30, th 
1929. They sent a committee to Bishop Basil Takacs , to find out 
about the bishops stand in this matter. According their report, 
the bishop intends to introduce celibacy. The parishioners decid- 
ed to send a petition to the bishop, which was sent September 18, 
1929, not to enforce celibacy. The "Cum data" was announced only 
October 5,1929. A reply to their petition did not arrive until - 
November 1, 1930, i.e. 15 months later. The eight Sojedinenije - 
Lodges of Bridgeport, Conn sent out a Circular Letter to lodges 
and parishes calling them to protest against celibacy. 

Fr. Orestes Cornak did not sign the Circular Letter. Still on 
December 11, 1930, was transferred to a small parish Roebling,N. 
J. He at once appealed and requested a canonical process, he was 
refused. Instead January 4, 1931 he received an order, that if he 
dares to celebrate the Divine Liturgy on Sunday January 4, 19 31, he 
will be ipso facto suspended. That Saturday 375 souls confessed, 
who were to receive Holy Communion Sunday. The bishop did not wor- 
ry about that; the same Sunday a parish annual meeting was held 
also, which had been announced three consecutive Sundays. In such 
a situation Fr. Orestes Cornak decided to celebrate the Divine li- 
turgy, he appealed again. After six months of an unjust suspension 
August 31,1931, the now competent Eparchial Tribunal under the in- 
fluence of the Bishop decided to defrock the so called "Stuborn " 
Fr. Orestes Cornak. He again appeals the case June 10,1932 the 
Eastern Congregation appointed the Archdioces Tribunal of Phila- 
delphia, Pa., which also was under the influence of the bishop. - 
Despite the awarness of facts brought by Fr. Joseph Hanulya and - 
Dr. Adrian Kilker, the Court approved the first Tribunal decision. 
A petition of restitution in integrum was issued. 

3. The third example was Fr. Constantine Aurorof f ,Hawk - Run 
Pa., a convert from the Russian Mission, who personally delivered 
in Rome accusations against Bishop Basil Takacs, concerning his 
past life and present abuse of authority. The case is still not 
decided. Bishop Basil Takacs suspended the accuser. 

4. The fourth example was Fr. Stephen Varzaly, Editor of the 
A.R.Viestnik, an organ of the Sojedinenije. It is necessary to ma- 
ke a remark, that Fr. Stephen Varzaly was appointed editor at the 
request of the bishop, he was good for the bishop when he attackedi 
the clergy, until he began to write against celibacy. The general 
opinion and decision of the members and the Board of Trustees ob- 
ligated him to do so.. Both Courts condemned Fr. Stephen Varzaly to 
be defrocked. He did not make an appeal foreseeing the partiality 
of the Court. 

5. The fifth example was Fr. Peter Molchany, who worked suc- 
cessfully in Warren, Ohio. Bishop Basil Takacs appointed to Clair- 
ton,Pa., which he could not occupy on account an unfinished Court 
process. He was forced for many months to live with his Father-in 
law in McKeesport,Pa. , without a salary and benefit . In such cir- 
stances he was transferred to Home stead, Pa. , to be an assistant . 
Here the people loved him. When Fr . Alexius Holozsnyay was gravely 
ill, incapable to function, the parishioners decided to consider - 
Fr. Alexius Holozsnyay as an pastor emeritus, giving him living 
quarters and $ 100.00 monthly pension. At the meantime they elec- 
ted Fr. Peter Molchany as their pastor. The bishop was well aware 


of all this, with his silence he approved it. Fr. Peter Molchany 
functioned for about a year as a pastor, not as an assistant. 

The bishop on the advice of his Consultors , had a desire to 
show his authority and before the very day of Christmas, he ap- 
pointed Fr. Peter Molchany to Aliquippa,Pa. Fr. Peter Molchany a- 
greed to leave Homestead, Pa., but requested the Clairton,Pa. /pa- 
rish. The bishop refused his request. Instead gave it to Fr. Mi- 
chael Rapach, being obligated to repay Fr. Valentine Gorzo the 
Father-in-law of Fr. Michael Rapach, as his best priest. 

To all this the faithful of Homestead, Pa. , declared, we will 
not let Fr. Peter Molchany leave us. The bishop took out an in- 
junction and on Christmas day had the Cathedral Church locked . - 
These people who gave $40,000.00 as a second mortgage of the epi- 
scopal residence, en Christmas day instead in the church they 
had the Divine Liturgy in a dance hall. The bishop lost the case 
in the first forum; the Higher Court not being competent turned 
the appeal to the State Court. Where it is at present. Where it 
will be decided among other matters it will be decided if Bishop 
Basil Takacs is a legal bishop, who was not elected by the clergy 
according the Union agreement. 

In all such circumstances Bishop Basil Takacs did not worry a- 
bout the matter only about the introduction of celibacy . This 
shows that he was and is ready to take off the suspension, if they 
would stop opposing celibacy. There was and could not be any oth- 
er reason. All these priests are first class priests. 



Bishop Basil Takacs under the pressure of the general opinion 
was forced to call a clergy conference, concerning celibacy. At 
this clergy conference contrary to the stricking invitation and 
the conduct of the meeting, with the exception of one single pri- 
est, the rest were all married clergy. Among these were five who 
the day before accused Fr. Orestes Coriiak, Stephen Varzaly and 
personally signed a protest against celibacy. This protest, as - 
the other public protests of the majority of parishes and lodges, 
are a clear proof, that all the clergy and the people are oppos- 
ing the introduction of celibacy. The Sojedinenije Convention 
tapped this agreement. We all, with one spirit are defending the 
laws and privileges of the Eastern Church. 

TWo or three parishes and the Sobranije Convention still did 
not protest. All that is, because the leaders did not permit them 
to express their opinions. 


At the Sojedinenije Convection of the Greek Catholic Union, 
held June 20, to July 2,1932 in Detroit, Michigan. About 500 cler- 
gy and layman personally signed the resolution to continue the 
fight against the introduction of celibacy in our Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church. This struggle will be against the bishop only if 
he will stubornly introduce celibacy. . The Convention proposed - 
its help to take away from him the authority as an Eastern Kite 
bishop for not ordaining the married seminarians. 


The bishop not giving a true reply, the Sojedinenije Conven- 
Msgr. Gabriel Martyak , President, Fr. Joseph Hanulya,Vice Presi - 
dent, Recording Secretaries Dr. Albert Cmor, Dr. George Varga, 
Controllers: Fr. Desiderius Simkow and Peter Korpos. These offi- 
cers are trusted to contact Bishop Basil Takacs to try to make an 
agreement, otherwise a full "PASSIVE RESISTENCE" will exist as it 
is existing. 

The K.O.V.O. will write not only in our newspapers , but also - 
in foreign newspapers, especially in English and Russian language 
it will compose a Memorandum, which will be sent not only to Rome, 
but also to all the Eastern Rite and American bishops; collec- 
tions will be made to have a fund to cover expenses in defense and 
help the suspended priests and the not ordained married seminari- 
ans, etc. 

In this manner the world will know Romes politics, thatit gi- 
ves with one hand and takes away with the other the given privileg- 
es from the converted ones . 


Until the present day the clergy were able to control the peop- 
le not to over step the boundries and also the fire hidden under 
the ash, which can easily flame up.. Then the clergy will not be 
responsible before God and the world for the consequences, but tho- 
se who are forcing celibacy. 

Marriage is not compulsary, who wishes to be single may be sin- 
gle. Who is able to live it, let him live it. But, to force some- 
one to become a celibate is contrary to nature, the will of the 
Saviour and the Church Law. 

The married clergy are not lesser than the single clergy, they 
too are able and successful. A undeniable fact is, that in the Init- 
ed States of America, the married clergy proved their ability and 
success and not the single clergy. 


We do not have to prove to Rome , that these laws and privileg- 
es belong to us . They cannot singully take away laws and legal pri- 
vileges. We are not renouncing them, nor will we renounce them. 

Let the world be aware and convinced, that we are within the 
law, we dare to bring forth a few facts. 

At the time of Iconoclasm many Easternerners escaped to Italy, 
where they were accepted as confessors of Faith . No one downcast- 
ed their rite, nor demanded the change of their rite. 

Pope Nicholas I. (P.R. 858-867 wrote clearly to Photius, that 
he is not objecting the different rites as long as they are not - 
contrary to Faith and General laws . 

At the time of separation with Michael Celurarius, the Latins 
were complaining, that the Easterners are making fun of them and 
do not consider the Western Sacraments valid. 

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) convinced the Easterners 
that they intend to respect the Easterners who defend their cus- 
toms and rites as much as possible with the help of God. (Cap. IV. 
Mansi XXII. 989) . 


The same was written by Pope Honorius III. P.R. in 1222 toto 
the King of Kipr Island (Ronaldus, Annales Eccl.) . 

In the year 1247 King Basil of Ladomir, wrote to Pope of Ro- 
me ask±n.g him acceptance into the Church. Pope Innocent IV. (1243- 
1254 replied: I agree that bishops and the clergy of Russia cele- 
brate the Divine Liturgy with leavend bread, according to their 
customs and that they keep all their other rites, which are not 
contrary to the Catholic Faith. 

Pope Eugene IV. (1431-1447) in "Laetentur coeli" names the U- 
nion "the most Holy", and the consequence of the Union is the 
Profession of one Faith retaining the several rites and the La- 
tin disciplinary law do not obligate the Easterners. ( Papp Szila- 
gyi, p. 22) . 

Pope Leo X. (1513-1521) in "Motu proprio accipimus neper" - 
May 26, 1521 penelty is instituted, expelling from the Church and 
forbiding the Latin bishops to disturb the Eastern clergy or the- 
ir widows, ordering that all those who were married and ordained, 
may continue to function and live with all their rights and cus- 
toms. As much, that if it would be necessary to request the army 
of civil authorities to defend the laws may do so. (Papp-Szilagy 
p. 367) . 

Pope Clement VIII. ( 1592-1605) in"Magnus Dominus" December 
23, 1595, names the Union an eternal greement, perpetua constitu- 
tion and asures the Easterners, that all that they used until 
the present day, will remain untouchable, and that no one can 
break this agreement. 

Pope Paul V( 1605-1621) in the Bulla "Docet Romanum Pontificem" 
December 2 , 1615 . Renounces all the suspicion whenever the Roman 
Church would intend or could intend to take away or erase destroy 
the holy rites. 

Pope Alexander VII. (1655-1667) in a Breve of June 8, 1655 
"Cum tu felicis" approved the Ungvar Union and the laws of our an- 
cestors. (Basilovits J. Vol. I. 84, IV. 69.). 

Pope Benedict XIV. ( 1740-1758 in Bulla "Etsi pastoralis" of 
May 25, 1742, renews and approves all the orders of his predeces- 
sors, that the Easterners keep their prescribed establishments in- 
stitutions, rites, customs, privileges, freedom, exceptions, inte- 
rests permitted and favors (mores, instituta, ritus, constitudin- 
es , privilegia immunitates ,, f avores , indulta et gra- 
tias concessa . . . sibi tradita studiose enixeque servare pergant, 
should utilize them. 

In the 26th paragraph of the same Bulla, the Roman Church do- 
es not prohibit that the clergy marry before ordination and live 
with their wives . 

In the "Demandatum coelitus" Bulla December 24, 1743 announc- 
es that no one, not even a Patriarch or Bishop is not permitted - 
under any title to stop or to introduce something into the rites, 
customs of the Easterners. 

In the "Allatae sunt" Bulla July 26, 1755 approves the deci- 
sion of the Zamost Eastern Synod, at which he as a secretary of 
the Congregation was present. Announces, that the decisions of of 
his Pope predicessors must always remain legal, valid. Reminding - 
the missionaries to convert the Easterners to Catholicity and not 
to the LATIN RITE. 

Pope Gregory XVI (1831- 1846) of July 17, 1841. A complaint - 


Metropolitan Michael Levicky ,That the Latin Church is taking a- 
way Easterners from their rite. He proclaims: The Apostolic See 
always requested to keep orders concerning the Eastern Rite. It 
always condemned and condemns the transfer to the Latin Rite, be- 
cause it does not want the destruction, but the continuation of 
the Eastern Rites. 

Pope Pius IX (1846- 1878 ) in an Encyclical of January 16, 
1848 "In suprema" and in his speach of December 19, 1855, especial- 
ly in "Romani Pontifices" states clearly, that the Roman See re- 
quests ONLY one thing, that, not to introduce into the rite any- 
thing that is contrary to Faith, dangerous to slavation of souls 
and contrary to virtue, not to be introduced, if falsehood was 
sown into the Eastern Rite, for that the Roman See cannot be 
blamed. To show his concern, this Pope established a separate de- 
partment in the Congregation of Faith, for the Eastern Church in 

Pope Benedict XV. May 1,1917 in "Dei providentis "established 
a separate Eastern Congregation. Their intention was good, but - 
the conduct became harmful to us . 

What about the present reigning Pope Pius XI . ? 

We do not think that it is necessary for us to bring forth - 
the opinion and expession of "Ecclesia Dei" December 1923 . In 
the Consistorial discussions of (March 24, 1924 and April 4,1925) 
in "rerum Orientalium studii" September 8, 1928 etc.. How can we 
be suspicious about the sincerity of this opinion and the strong 
will ? 

Pope Leo XIII. (1878-1903) was the one who at the request of 
the United States of American Latin Bishops, gave an order Octo- 
ber, that the Greek Rite Catholic clergy in the United States of 
America be celibates, and not married. 

That this was not his opinion nor request is proved by the 
Bulla "Orientalium dignitas" of November 30,1894, where ne deci- 
dedly says : that the customs of the Easterners must be kept invi- 
olate. "Grande munus" Encyclical (1880) spread the worshiping of 
the SLOVANIC Apostles SS. Cyril and Methodius throughout the 
whole Church. And in the "praeclara gratulationis" Eincyclica of 
June 29, 1894 assures the Orthodox, that if they return, all the- 
ir rites and customs will be secured. 

But the United States of America Latin Rite Bishops did not 
give up their contentions. Under their influence July 18, 1907 - 
the unfortunate "EA SEMPER" Bulla appeared. In August 18,1913 , 
"Fidelibus Ruthenis", for Canada and August 17 ,1914: "Cum Episco- 
po Graeco Rutheno" Revised for the United States of America Ju- 
ne 21 1924 and topped it with the "CUM DATA FUERIT" March 1. 

Against these late orders of injustice and unpleasantness . 
We still want to live with our LAWS and PRIVILEGES, even with - 
those which were taken away from us . 

We have the full right of the law. We are not asking a favor, 
or something new, we are only defending and will be defending 
our particular laws. If Rome still does not favor us as it dees 
others, because it did not give us our Patriarch, i e t it NOT ta- 
ke away the centuries old customs. 



With joy we acknowledge, that the attacks against our laws a- 
wakened the love of our own, in many of the indifferent elders - 
and youth. We can see well and openly dare not say, that hatred 
is spreading against all that is Roman Latin. If the attacks will 
not stop, we fear that hatred will break the streched string of 
unity. Diximus. 

Being that certain persons and groups do not care about the 
salvation of souls, only that their wish be fulfilled, we are 
turning to the Holy Father. 

Within You, in Your fidelity to the centuries old traditions, 
in Your impartial justice is our last hope. 

We are begging You humbly Holy Father to stop all the attack- 
s against the Eastern Church. 

Do not permit the curbing of our Bishop's rights, nor for 
him to over step his authority, power. 

For this we promise our loyalty, obedience, self sacrifice 
and love , the union of perfectnes . 

In unshaken hope, that the peace of Christ will soon be with 
us, with filial respect we write our selves: 


Joseph Hanulya 
George Hric 
John Krusko 
Stephen Gulyassy 
Nicholas Stulyakovics 
Anthony E. Kubek 
Gabriel Martyak 
Emil Nevicky 
Joseph Jackanich 
Desiderius Simkow 
Ludovic Artim 
Michael Andrejkovics 
Emil Burik 
Orestes Koman 
Alexius Vislocky 
Eugene Volkay 
Peter Keselyak 
Nicholas Martyak 

Anthony Mhley 
John Szabo 
Nicholas Kristof 
A.M. Bihary 
Theodore Hodobay 
Desiderius Dubay 
Demetrius Darin 
M.M. Staurovsky 
Andrew Dzmura 
Igor Mackov 
Joseph I. Mackov 
Stephen Zacharias 
Ireneus Dolhy 
John Bajcura 
John Soroka 
Desiderius Zubricky 
Stephen Kozak 
Vladimir Mihalics 

P.S. The above was written July 1932, without anger or parti- 
sanship, only for information. We waited for a reply. It is sad 
to say that since then matters are getting worst. The people are 
bitter. In many places the priest was evicted and replaced by a- 
nother one, or they forbade the priest to mention the Bishops na- 
me in the Divine Liturgy. If the cause of this struggle will not 
be stopped soon, if celibacy will be forced, we can expect the 
destruction of the Church. 


No 3976-i 

1811 Biltmore Street 
Washington , D . C . 
Pastoral Letter February 22,1933 

The Rev. Stephen Varzalyi 



It has come to the knowledge of the Sacred Congregation for 
the Oriental Church that you intend to submit, through your advo- 
cate, a request for " restitutio in integrum ", following the sen- 
tence of the Metropolitan Court of Philadelphia, Pa. , given on June 
10,1932, which confirmed the sentence of the Diocese Tribunal of 
your proper Ordinary . 

His Eminence Cardinal Sincero has requested me to advise you 
that it will avail you nothing, such a request to the Holy See 
The Sacred Congregation accurately examind all ths facts of the 
process and decided, on January 7th, with the approval of the Ho- 
ly Father, to reject a simular request made by Father Orestes 
Chornock, because there were not sufficient valid motives to jus- 
tify it. 

Wishing you every blessing, I remain 

Sincerely yours in Christ 
P. Fumasoni Biondi 
Abp. of Dolcea, m.p. 
Apostolic Delegate 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1811 Biltmore Street 

Washington , D . C . 
No 3796-i February 10,1933 

Pastoral Letter February 22,1933. 

Reverend Orestes Chornock: 
Reverend Sir: 

The Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church has received 
your request for "restitutio in integrum", sent on July 21, 1932, 
following the sentence of the Metropolitan Court of Philadelphia, 
given on June 10, 1932, which confirmed the sentence of the Dio- 
cesan Tribunal of your proper Ordinary.. 

The Sacred Congregation accurately examined all the acts of 
the process and decided, on January 7-th, with the approval of - 
the Holy Father, to reject your request, because there were not 
sufficient valid motives to justify it. 

Wishing you every blessing, I remain 

Sincerely yours in Christ 

P. Fumasoni Biondi, Abp. of Dolcea, m.p. 
Apostolic Delegate 


A.R.Viestnik April 4, 1933, p. 1. 

You are all aware that for the past three years the struggle 
is on and continues in our society. You all are aware also of its 
reason. Here we cannot speak about the reasons of the struggle, or 
about the struggle itself. You all witnessed it and are aware 
what happend . 

Each struggle comes to an end, and bring a lasting peace. We 
did not continue our struggle simply to loose strenght, the foun- 
dation and aim of this struggle was and is, to secure a better 
future in Church matters and affairs, and that the conditions of 
a lasting peace be secured, namely; that the laws and privileges 
of our Eastern Rite be upheld. 


This struggle called the attention of the Holy Father, who al- 
ways has shown his sincere love to us Rusins in all matters. The 
wish of the Holy Father was always to see the progress of the Car- 
pathian Rusins in the United States of America in their churches, 
in national and social affairs. When the Holy Father found out a- 
bout our struggle, out of which we, ourselves could not find a 
way out, He took personal interest in it as a good Father. He 
sent us Bishop Peter Bucys, that he on the spot, converse with us 
get acquainted with our situation, our wounds, which are bring- 
ing suffering and danger to us. He was to present all to the Holy 
Father, to prepare peace calmness and conditions for progress. 

The gesture of the Holy Father in its self proves His sincere 
love and reassurance to us. We are to trust in His justice concer- 
ning us, and believe in His love, which He has shown many a times 
towards us Rusins. He does not want us to be destroyed or all that 
was accomplished by hard work and great sacrifices be demolished. 
He wishes to help us to know, how can a beautiful and better futu.- 
re be secured for us. 

The Holy Father Pope Pius XI, sent to us Bishop Peter Bucys - 
an Eastern Rite Bishop from. Rome enpowering him to seek a road of 
peace. Bishop Peter Bucys is objective, he is considering our af- 
fairs with charity. We see him daily and converse with him about 
our matters and having a great hope, that a method will be found, 
a way to satisfactory peace and perfect order. Beside this it was 
resolved that the three member committee will go to Rome to the 
Holy Father, urge and receive a final decision of the Holy Father 
who obligatoraly, justly, decide our affairs, that the decision 
will serve us and be beneficial to our Eastern Greek Rite Catho- 
lic Church. 

Naturally, there is no need for us to continue the sharp 
struggle in such serious affairs of ours , when we are seeking 
peace. Such a move would take up our strenght. Serious matters a- 
re concern; their progress depends on our conduct and seriousness 
We are to prove, that we have a good will, that we believe in 
justice and love of the Holy Father. We are to stop the struggle, 
especially now, because the holiness of Paschal days request tha- 
from us, that our souls be overwhelmed with the spirit of peace - 
and good will. 

Repeatedly I am remarking, that when such serious moves are 
made towards peace, when a Bishop sent by the Holy Father is a- 
mong us seeing his work earnestly with great love and intention 
in our interest, we are aware that the Holy Fathers interest is 
turned to us. We are to prove our worthyness of that love, which 
characterizes the Holy Fathers love , when matters concern us , our 
children of the Rusin people and members of the Eastern Catholic 
Church are concerned. The Holy Fathers greatest desire is that 
peace be among His children. That our Church preserve all the 
beauty and treasure virtues of its Eastern Rite in fulness and in 
violability. We are aware and believe, that the Holy Father does 
not want to see our rite be violated. We are aware and believe , 
that the Holy Father always turns to us affectionally with love 
and best intentions. When there was a famine, He helped our suf- 
fering Rusin people in a friendly way. We who are responsible 
for the moral and religious merits of the people are to give di- 
rectives to them. Brothers accept our sincere reminders, .because 


they are dictated not by egoism, but in the interest of the Carpa- 
tho Rusin people and the future interests of our moral and reli- 
gious interests. 

Those who understand these sincere reminders , in whos hearts the- 
re is a sincere love, who loved the Eastern Rite, will help us in 
these difficult times to secure peace for the Rusins of the Greek 
Rite people in the United States of America 

We have confidence in our Rusin people and believe that our 
Greek Rite Catholic people will be patient and prudent in these ve- 
ry important days. We are confident that every Rusin Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic of the Eastern Rite will agree with us in these matters, when 
serious moves are to be made to establish a lasting peace, there is 
no place for a struggle in our Rusin newspapers. 

We hope that in a short time we will be able to advise you a- 
bout the happy results. 

GO(j is with us ! 

Fr. Michael Staurovsky Michael Yuhasz Sr. George Komlos 
Spiritual Advisor Sojedinenije Pres. Fin. Secretary 

John M. Hirack John Masich Michael Timkc 

Rec. Sec. Sokol Sec. Junior Sec. 

Michael Laputka Andrew Hleba Michael Kopasz 

Contr. Pres. Contr. Contr. 

Anna Piatnik Peter Iv.Zeedick Dr. 




A.R.Viestnik June 6, 1933. p. 1. 

The K.O.V.O. Committee had its special session June 6,1933 , at 
Homestead, Pa. , in the Sojedinenije Office, commencing at 4. P.M. 

The subject of the session was: matter concerning the Eccclesi- 
astical National Congress . 

The following were present : 

Michael Yuhasz ,Sr Chairman, Dr. Peter Iv. Zeedick Vice Chairman 
Albert Cmor, Secretary, Peter Korpos ,John Lois, Fr . Stephen Varzaly 
George Komlos, Stephen Sterenchak, John Mocosko, George Puhak, Micha- 
el Yuhasz Jr., Fr. Michael Staurovsky, Peter Mackov, Basil Slivka - 
John Masich, John Hirak and Andrew HJeba as members. 

Michael Yuhasz Sr . , opened the meeting by stating that a qourum 
is present to conduct a valid meeting. 

In his introduction speach he reminded the members, that we ha- 
ve to solve important matters, therefore we must very seriously 
stress every move of ours, because the success of our Congress de- 
pends upon our decisions . We have to be aware , that we are concern- 
ed about our religious and national lives welfare. Let us not pay 

attention to the unnecessary shouting of some , who are not acquain- 
ted with the circumstances and are demanding impossible deeds un- 
patiently. Being that among the members are Sojedinenije officials 
involved in the movement defending the Eastern Rite, that does not 
meanthat it is the movement of the Sojedinenije, even that it ori- 
ginated in the Sojedinenije. As members of the K.O.V.O. a heavy 
burden is placed upon the shoulders of the K.O.V.O. Committee to 
serve our Rusin peoples religious and national matters. 

First of all we must stress the goal of the Congress, We must 


set well the inner goals of boundries and possibilities, be aware 
of the interests of our Greek Rite Catholic Rusin Eastern Rite - 
Church in the United States of America. We are to build and not 
shatter, not destroy, because we are proud that we built our chur- 
ches with great sacrifices and founded an Eparchy for ourselves 
Let us work in such a way, that later on we will not be ashamed 
that we unwisely destroyed, what we previously built. It is not 
hard to shout, but hard to think seriously, when we think that we 
are responsible for our words and deeds . Think prudently about the 
goal of the Congress and form the points of the program. 

Previously it was set as planed that the Congress should be in 
the later part of June, at present when we are to resolve and bring 
into life our moves, to have a successful Congress, it is even - 
hard to think about it. We must make the program and send out the 
blanks and directives to the parishes and branches, to seek a pla- 
ce where the Congress will be held. Also, to give time to all the 
parishes to send out their delegates, for all this to be done late 
June is a very short time. 

Finally I am reminding the present members to stress matters 
honestly and wisely, not under an influence of some instigators , 
who only shout, criticize and otherwise do nothing. We must agree 
and unite our strenght, present the truth accurately and wisely in- 
form the people.. Because, there are Ecclesiastical and Civil laws 
which we cannot ignore. The meeting is opened, let us all present 
our opinions and proposals . : 

DR. ALBERT CMOR: The most important matter of the Congress be- 
side the program is to set the time of the Congress and its place 
and state the qualifications of the delegates . 

GEORGE PUHAK: I agree with Michael Yuhasz Sr., that the late 
June date of the Congress is too short, let us postpone it until 
we are all prepared for it. 

PETER KORPOS : I propose that the date be at this session, set. 

JOHN LOIS: The goal of the Congress is well known to all, secu- 
re the inviolability of the Eastern Rite, moves to have order in 
our Church and national life. 

FR. STEPHEN VARZALY : The Congess should be held as soon as pos- 
sible, the people are waiting for it for the past three years. The 
goal of the Congress should be to have celibacy revoked , assume the 
laws, privileges, traditions of the Fastern Rite and have order in 
the Eparchy. 

ANDREW HLEBA: I propose that the first point of our program 
should be the expression of our loyalty yo our Church, stating - 
that we do not want Independency, nor Schism, we do not want to 
leave the Greek Rite Catholic religion, but to save our Eastern Ri- 
te. I propose to debate the charters of our parishes. THe follow- 
ing took part in the debate: Peter Korpos, Michael Yuhasz Sr. , And- 
rew Hleba, Basil Slivka, George Puhak, Peter Iv. Zeedick,M.D. , 
John Lois and John Mocosko. 

The making of the program began: 

In a general debate it was proposed, that in the program the 
following paragraphs should be presented by the K.O.V.O.. 

1. The Ecclesiastical National Congress is to solemnly decla- 
re that neither the delegates nor those whom they represent not 
want to leave Holy Mother Church, do not want Independence, nor 
Schism, but we wish to remain the faithful children of their Greek 


Rite Catholic Church of the Eastern Rite united with the Roman 
Holy See. 

2. We wish to have a perfect security of inviolability of - 
the Eastern Rite with all laws, privileges. In this manner we 
want to secure the special Eastern Rite discipline of our Church. 
By all means we want the abrogation of celibacy. 

3. We request the compiling of good and acurate Eparchial - 
Statutes, which will contain the laws and obligations of the cler- 
gy, cantors and people. 

4. We request to have uniformity in the Divine Services in 
our rite . 

5. In the interest of peace, we request the discharge of the 
present Chancellor: Fr. Theophile Zsatkovics, Fr. Julius Gri gassy, 
Secretary, from their offices on account of their unactivity .Also 
to dismiss two Consultors, namely: Fr. Valentine Gorzo and Fr.Alex-^ 
ander Papp, who are detested by the people, they are "odium populi". 

6. We request, that as soon as possible a seminary and can- 
tors school be established to educate the Eastern Rite Churches 
clergy and cantors. 

7. We request that a necessary, respectful order be set in 
such parishes where the people are opposing the priest, and the 
priest falls into "odium populi . 

8. We request that the Church Authority lead a just Rusin - 
national trend in our institutions, also we expect the Church Au- 
thority to respect the Rusin national spirit of the Carpatho Rusin 
people in the United States of America. These people are Rusins at 
heart and soul who want their direction. 

9. We request that the clergy and cantors be reminded be the 
Church Authority, to highly respect the Rusin spirit of the people. 
Such clergy and cantors whos spirit is contrary to the people, not 
to have a place in our parishes . 

10. We request that the censure be definetly terminated from 
Fr. Stephen Varzaly, Orestes Chornock, Peter Molchany. Also that 
the married seminarians be ordained. This is necessary to be done 
for the justice and interest of peace. 

11. We request the organizing of a monastic Order of men. 

12. We request, that the Church Authority give out a public 
financial report of its past eight years and from now on a yearly 
report . 

13. We request that the Church Authority give out uniform re- 
ligious and school books in Rusin and English language . 

14. We request a working plan necessary for teaching in our 
schools. By all means we request, that the clergy be obligated 
punctually and intensively teach religion to our children accord- 
ing the uniform plan and that the Church Authority strictly super- 
vise the religious teaching of our children and not let it ride as 
it did up to the present day. 

15. A Chancellor and Secretary are not to have a parish. This 
we request, the reason is that the Church administration is below 
a critical status , most probably because the officers have a pa- 
rish, therefore they cannot fulfill their obligations in the Chance- 
ry Office. Secondly such a practice does not exist in the Old-coun- 
try nor in the United States of America. 

16. The Congress is to seek a way, that the residence be 
paid in full, because of the bad administration and carelessness - 


of Church Authority, the bishops residence can be liquidated also, 
the cathedral church of St. John the Baptist in Homestead, Pa. , - 
could also go on Sheriff e sale. 

17. It is necessary that the clergy and cantors have a Pen- 
sion Fund, that in case of hardship, they in their o]d age or sick- 
ness could make an honost living and in case of death, their fami- 
ly be secured . 

18. It is resolved that a sufficient salary be payed to the 
clergy and cantors. If it is possible a fund is to be made out of 
which even the smallest parish be able to pay the salary, to have 
a proper spiritual service. The Congress requests that the canters 
receive one third of stole fees. 

19. Our request is, that, when there is a vacant parish the 
Eparchial Authority assign a competition (Konkurs) of which compe- 
tition the parishioners would choose three candidates of which the 
bishop is to appoint one to the parish. 

20. We are requesting that the law processess be stopped 
which are still continued on account of some reasons in certain pa- 
rishes, between the Church Authority and parish, the parish matter- 
s to be settled amicably and not in Court. 

21. We request that the Church Authority make a serious or- 
der in all the parishes, where the people have valid accusation 
against the priest. This is to be done at once, righteously with a 
good will towards the people. 

22. To gain its goal the K.O.V.O. requests, that the clergy 
and the people take part in the Congress, in the best interest of 
our church , people and the future generation . 


1. The Ecclesiastical National Congress will be held July 26, 
1933 in Pittsburgh, Pa. , in the church hall on Forward Ave. This is 
a final decision. It comences at 9 A.M. with a Divine Liturgy , which 
will be celebrated in the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin Church on For- 
ward Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

2. The church branches of the K.O.V.O. have the right to - 
send two lay delegates and their priest. If the priest will not 
want to attend the Congress , then the parish may send 3 delegates . 

3. Where the circumstances are such that they cannot hold 
their parish meeting to select delegates, the Branch may select 
their 3 or less delegates. 

4 . The expenses of the delegates are to be payed by the pa- 
rish or branch. 

5. The forms are sent to the parish priest. If the priest - 
would not agree to cooperate then the President of the branch will 
receive them. 

6. A program of the Congress will be sent to the parishes , 
branches and clergy, to discuss the matter at their meeting. 

7. The forms are to be signed by the K.O.V.O. President, Sec- 
retary and the local priest, lay church President and Secretary - 
and branch President. If the priest refuses to sign the forms, it 
will be valid without his signature. 

8. The forms are to be made up by Stephen Sterenchak. 

9. Concerning other matters of the Congress the K.O.V.O. pre- 
sident and secretary are in charge. 

The meeting was closed with a prayer. 


Homestead, Pa. , June 6, 1933. 

Michael Yuhasz Sr. ,K.O.V.O Chairman Fr. Michael Staurovsky 

Dr. Peter Iv. Zeedick,K.O.V.O.Cochairman * Michael Yuhasz Jr 

Albert M Cmor, K.O.V.O. Sec. John Hiral* * 

John Lois, K.O.V.O. Contr. * Andrew Hleba * 

Peter Korpos Michael Timko * 

Stephen Sterenchak 

George Puhak * 

John Mdcosko * 

Basil Slivka 

George Komlos * 

John Masich * * 9 original members . 

Peter Mackov 

Fr. Stephen Varzaly August 3, 1932. 

No 116-1933 June 28,1933 

Reverend Fathers : 

You yourselves are aware , that the agitation wishing to force 
a change in the administration and disciplinary life of the Holy 
Church, did not stop. The consequences of tendencies of reinforce- 
ment so to say, stepped up to the domain of radicalism, when they 
are trying to discuss one Ecclesistical National Congress, which in 
the view of the Church is not permissible. The Church always raised 
her voice aganst such and simular tendencies and did not permit it, 
when some one, out of ignorance or ill will, was trying to curb the 
authority of the Holy Apostolic See, bishops and clergy. 

Being that in the paragraphs of the Ecclesiastical National Con- 
gress, announced by the A.R.Viestnik, to be held July 26,1933, also 
include into the authority rights of the Head of the Church, the Ho- 
ly Congregation for the Eastern Rite Church and the Eparchial Ordi- 
nary. With the understanding of the Apostolic Delegate, I therefore 
call the attention of all our Rev. Fathers, not to attend it nor ta- 
ke part in it, in this Ecclesiastical National Congress, of July 26, 
1933. The matter is very serious, and for the consequence every one 
of the Fathers will be responsible. 

Basil Takacs , Bishop. 


Circular Letter June 1933. 

From the K.O.V.O Committee 

Esteemed Sir: 

With this letter we are notifying you, as members of the K.O.V.O. 
that the Ecclesiastical National Congress will be held July 26, 1933 
in Pittsburgh, Pa. , 504 Forward Ave, beginning at 9. A.M. with a Divi- 
ne Liturgy. 

You as the elected member of this committee have the full right 


to appear at the mentioned Congress. Please bring this letter with 
you, to present the committee of aproval. 

Michael Yuhasz ,Sr. 
K.O.V.O. President 

With respect 

Albert M Cmor 
K.O.V.O. Secretary 


Leaflet. Home stead, Pa, June 1933 

Divine Liturgy 10.30 A.M. celebrated by the clergy. 

Registration of Delegates. 

Registration Committee: Andrew Hleba, Peter Korpos,John Masich. 

Congress opened with a prayer : "Heavenly King . - My Country 

and Ja Rusin byl..." 

Greeting by John Mocosko 

Speaker: Michael Yuhasz ,Sr. Chairman of the K.O.V.O. 

Msgr. Gabriel Martyak 
Report: Albert Cmor, K.O.V.O. Secretary 
Speakers: Fr. Stephen Varzaly Editor of the A.R.Viestnik 

Peter Mackov, Editor of the Sokol Sojedinenije 

Peter Korpos , President of the Cantors Society 

Fr. Joseph Hanulya, Fr. Vladimir Mihalics 

Dr. Peter Iv. Zeedick, K.O.V.O. Vice Pres . 

Fr. Alexius Vislocky, Spiritual of Svoboda-Liberty 

Fr. Desiderius Simkow 

John Popp, Pres. of the Sokol Sojedinenije. 

Peter Guzley, Pres. of Svoboda-Liberty. 

Dr. George Varga, Vice Pres. of Sojedinenije 

Michael Laputka 

George Puhak 
The Chairman presents the subject to be debated. 
The delegated committee will visit Bishop Basil Takacs to re- 
cieve his reply to the important questions of the Congress . 
Solemn declaration of loyalty to the Congress . 
Bishops reply if there will be one. 

Discussion of the first question of the resolutions of the K. 

Other questions and resolutions . 

Motion presented by parish branch delegates 


A.R.Viestnik September 28, 1933, p. 7. 
Exerpts from the Minutes of the 
Eccl. Nat. Congress. 

( Fr. Joseph Hanulya wanted to protest against a few paragraphs. 
The delegates would not listen to him and did not permit him to 
speak. Later a letter of protest was given with the request to in- 
clude the protest in the Minutes of the Congress . 

The full text of the protest is as follows: 



In the resolutions the clergy found the following paragraphs - 
not legal and contradictory. 

1. If we are firmly standing by the Ungvar Union of 1646 as 
it is stated in the first paragraph,.... then we cannot logically 
and justly so accept, the one we asked for, who is appointed by 
the Roman See and by us in spite of this that he was not elected - 

by the clergy in 1924, the accepted bishop will stay until 

Rome recalls him. 

2. True, .... to prevent the Ungvar Union conditions , the 
clergy may willfully use it as it appears in the request in the 6 - 
paragraph, then the bishop or administrator cannot be freely elect 
ed, and it it done so, then moraly it destroys the right to choose 
a person. ( Example, Hodermarsky) . 

3. To appoint members to the different Congregations, .. that 
is exclusively the right, authority of the Pope of Rome himself. 

For the clergy to demand, that they without a special permis - 
sion elected a representative in the Holy Congregation, as it is 
mentioned in paragraph 7, that is taking away the right from the 
Pope of Rome . 

4 . Paragraph 10 . that the bishop and the clergy should not 
be trustees of the church, in many States that is contrary to the 
State Law. Such a decision would place the Congress as one ignor- 
ing the State Law, what should never happen , 

5. This struggle was not, nor is it a strggle between the 
clergy or between the clergy and people, but a struggle to revoke 
celibacy and latinization. Not to pay the salary of the priests ,un- 
till they will not make order, as the 11th paragrapg proposes , is 
illogical and unjust, and a punishment for the fighters for the Ea- 
stern Church. 

In such an attitude the Congress is overstepping its trust ,- 
authority, pledge (vidi. the invested power). If they would ac- 
cept this, what is proposed n the 12th paragraph, i.e. that we all 
with our churches break relations with the clergy and the Roman Ap- 
ostolic See. With this we would destroy even the good proposals 
The clergy are protesting against such proposals, and the acceptan- 
ce of them. These resolutions not only would not be victorious , but 
instead the Congress would destroy the whole matter. 

Rev. Joseph P. Hanulya Rev. Michael Morris 

Rev. Vladimir Mihalics Rev. Orestes Chornock 

Rev. Michael Staurovsky 


Chancery Office August 22,1933 
No. 149-1933. 

Dear Sons in Christ: 

The present circumstances are so important and critical that 


I deem it necessary to call all the clergy for a Conference to 
talk over these flaming matters . This Conference will be in the - 
Passionist Monastery in the city of Pittsburgh, Pa. , 18th Street 
Extention and Monastery Ave, South Side Pittsburgh, Pa. , August 
30 ,1933, commencing 9.00 A.M. (Daylight Saving time) with a Divi- 
ne Liturgy. Having in mind the present weighty circumstances of 
matters. I hope, that every one of you Fathers, will make it your 
duty to be present. 

Accept my Episcopal blessing 

Your affectionate Father 

in Christ 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 


August 30, 1933. 

August 30, 1933, 10.30 A.M. Basil Bishop Takacs celebrated the 
Divine Liturgy, after which the clergy assembled in the Passionist 
Fathers Monastery auditorium at the 18th Street Extention and Mo- 
nastery Ave, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

After the prayer invoking the Holy Spirit was sung, Bishop Ba- 
sil Takacs had a short introduction concerning the conference. He 
read his address to the clergy, ending it by saying: "You all may 
make remarks concerning my address " . 

The Bishop turned to Msgr. Gabriel Martyak and asked: What a- 
re your remarks concerning my address.? 

MSGR. GABRIEL MARTYAK proposed, that Fr. Joseph Hanulya make 
the remarks, because he represented the K.O.V.O. July 26-28, 1933 
in Pittsburgh, Pa. , and is aware of the matters of the Congress . 
He would know best how to compile the present day matter. 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS: I accept your proposal, but, I wish to 
hear your opinon . , what are your remarks ? 

MSGR. GABRIEL MARTYAK: Gave his opinion as follows: Let us 
remain with the point of view which I held to the present day 
and about which matters I am concerned, that the Eastern Rites 
Privileges are to be defended. To better understand my proposal, 
my opinion is that the whole situation is in the Bishop's power, 
and can be solved in por Eparchy, by fulfilling the faithfuls re- 
quest. Furthermore, the clergy are reiterating their request, that 
the Eastern Rite privileges and rights are to be upheld. The peop- 
le will remain people, they are impatient and by no means will ac- 
cept Latinization. The people above all consider their fate of 
salvation, and tie in their salvation with the rites privileges - 
and rights . 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS: As we all are well aware the laity over- 
stepped the boundries, the so called representatives during the 
Congress, constructed the disgraceful ultimatum and blindly sent 
it to the Holy Father. We cannot cooperate with such ill will in 
our present circumstances, especially, if we take into considera- 
tion, that the Holy Father already has spoken. The so called re- 
presentatives of the people are constructing resolutions by which 
they are taking away the rights of the clergy, and using them ve- 
ry cleverly. No one can help such resolutions. 


MSGR. GABRIEL MARTYAK: Bishop, we too condemn the K.O.V.O. re- 
solutions, but I must make a remark, that, if the clergy would ha- 
ve been present in large number at the Congress , then they could 
not of carried out such non-catholic proposals. I must sadly say, 
that only a few priests were present, therefore at present we must 
bear the unpleasant consequences . . 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS : Monsignor , are you not aware, that the 
common teaching of the Church is, that a priest cannot take part 
in forbidden matters. The Congress is totally invalid, so are; the 
proposed resolutions. It originated in sin, continued in sin ,and 
in its evil, will and constructed the resolutions. From the very 
beginning, they should have of kept and defended the principles, i . 
e . that no one could have received permission to attend this Con- 
gress, only few priests by exception, who were elected to be pre- 
sent at the Congress , but even their permission was given only 
concerning certain matters . In time they had to decide on the 
spot. This condition could be used, only, when there was a vacan- 
cy in the office of a priest, but even then, everything and every- 
one are to defend the Catholic forum. 

MSGR. GABRIEL MARTYAK: Made the following proposals: 

a) Remove the cause of the present condition in our Eparchy 
(Recall celibacy law.). 

b) Ordain married seminarians , who completed their theologi- 
cal studies ( but that is contrary to the celibacy law therefore 
there is no ordination.). 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS explained: the office and work of a priest 
is the best way that he can show his attitude by demonstration, no- 
te the errors they make in writing, agitating, discussing, e.g. - 
in the question of celibacy, they overstep the boundries of Chris- 
tian ethics. They degrade the bishops authority, do not show re- 
spect to the Eastern Congregation, neither to the Apostolic See. 

MSGR. GABRIEL MARTYAK: Without your Excellencys help we can- 
not be successful. 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS: I do not doubt that, but you all at pre- 
sent day must be ready to face all kind confrontations. Your per- 
sonal matters are exceptions, e.g. Msgr. Gabriel Martyak you as a 
Spiritual Director of the Sojedinenije have authority and privi- 
leges. You as a Spiritual Director of the Greek Catholic Union you 
did nothing concerning our Eparchy, when the Sojedinenije began to 
oppose celibacy. If you disbehaved, do you not think, that I too 
should return evil to you. Msgr. Martyak you witnessed the begin- 
ing of the work against celibacy. Without that you were only in- 
creasing the mournful sad witness on the pages of history. 

To the above remark, the following are the remarks: 

Bishop your presence was requested by all, to be present at the 
1932 Sojedinenije Convention in Detroit, Michigan, where many deci- 
sions, resolutions would of been totally different, if you had be- 
en present. 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS: Replied, my presence at the celebrated - 
Convention was forbidden. Let us say, if something have happened con- 
trary to customs, of which a bishop must always be mindful, that he 
cannot be present at such occasion, because I must obey the orders 
of the Apostolic See. I was always absolutely obedient, therefore I 
did not take part in it, as it would have pleased you. If I would 
been obedient, then you would have been explaining the paragraphs 


of the Ungvar Union falsely in this unfortunate celibacy matter. 

Before the conference arrived to this point, discussions among 
the clergy began earlier. Fr. Joseph Hanulya petitioned for a per- 
mission to attend the Convention. 

FR. JOSEPH HANULYA: Two years past up to date, that we are de- 
bating the celibacy question. The present day is the same as was 
the first day. Since the- first day no changes were made in our E- 
parchy statutes. Therefore the present Conference is not apprecia- 
ted at present, it would have been better to wait 60 days and then 
call a conference. ( The K.O.V.O. gave 60 days, waiting for a reply 
to the resolutions. The 60 days would prove and reveal historicaly, 
what kind of moves we are to take. 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS : the remarks were the following: (which he 
used in his speach letter at the conference" "NOS" et "SI"( we and 
if). We the Catholics, but of the Eastern Rite, who are living spi- 
ritually with our privileges of our rite. The phrase: "Roma locuta 
causa finita" many a times has a different meaning as, that the 
matter is closed, when it concerns discipline. This leads us, into 
a false and erroneous conclusion. Theoratically speaking that the 
Pope of Rome according the Florentine and Vatican Councils, has the 
priority in discipline, but in practice it is not so. As we note, 
when the Holy See makes a Concordat and agrees with different Coun- 
tries, the Pope obligates himself with the Concordat, the same goes 
with the 1646 Union of Ungvar. ( The speaker refers to the Concordat 
tied with Poland, with the Atheistic, pagan Bolseviks) . Therefore 
the Roman Pope obligates himself also with the conditions of the - 
1646 Ungvar Union which concerns our Eastern Catholic Rite discip- 
line. He subscribed authority, not for a day, but forever. The Roman 
Pope obligates himself from one part to uphold the inscribed condi- 
tions and from the other part He contradicts himself. 

Bishop, in your previous speach you made errors by a poor jud- 
gement, showing bad consequences in your arguments. 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS: Rev. Fathers while we are debating upon 
the celibacy question, one takes note, that we should occupy our- 
selves with the following questions, concerning life and death. 
Send a humble petition to the Holy See, plead to revoke the celiba- 
cy law, and stating, that if the Holy See revokes the celibacy law, 
we will be obedient for ever. However, I wish to remind you, that a 
humble petition must come from our heart and soul, and not as an 
ultimatum, nor a command as the K.O.V.O. done it. 

REV. MICHAEL STAUROVSKYS name was mentioned, as the only one 
who gave his name to the K.O.V.O. resolutions. Indignation arose a- 
mong the clergy, when they were advised about this act of Rev. Stau- 
rovsky. The voice of the present clergy became lauder and lauder as 
his name was mentioned. Those attending began to say that the Fr. M. 
Staurovsky was pressed to sign his name, a moral terror was used.Fr. 
Michael Staurovsky could not bear this irony by no means, he got up 
and replied: "I have signed my name to all the K.O.V.O. resolutions 
of the Congress. Now there is nothing else for me to do about my 
signature, which was illicit, therefore I prounounce it null, I re- 
voke my signature . " 


a) Does the bishop have the power to introduce celibacy in our 
Eparchy ? (The above question was asked to clarify the matter, was it 
the bishop who originated the introduction of celibacy in our Epar- 
chy ?) . 


b) What is the reason, that some of the seminarians are not 
ordained, whereas they are prepared for ordination ? 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS : I was aware of the celibacy issue before 
I came to the United States of America, which was mentioned for - 
the Eparchy, Msgr Gabriel Martyak also acknowledges, that he too 
knew about the celibacy law. My reply to those in concern to be or- 
dained, is: 

a) Joseph Mihaly does not belong to our Eparchy. 

b) Michael Cyberey, already received a reply from the Holy 
Eastern Congregation, that he as a married priest cannot function 
in the United States of America ? 

In this part of the conference, the bishop condemned the K.O.7. 

REV. JOSEPH HAKULYA: Made the remark concerning the K.O.V.O. - 
therefore "We are condemning the K.O.V.O. its objectives and goals" 

At 1.30 P.M. the conference ended for a time being. 
Another Conference was recommended for the after noon. 

DR. GEORGE MICHAJLO was called to read the Declaration about 
the loyalty and homage to Pope Pius XI. 

Holv Father: 

We the undersigned Greek Rite Catholic clergy, active in pas- 
toral work, functioning in the United States of America, from 1924 
in the Pittsburgh Eparchy, the present Ordinary is Bishop Basil Ta- 
kacs who invited us to a Conference in the Passionist Monastery , 
Pittsburgh, Pa. , August 30, 1933, with the best intentions to .... 
stress, about which we are to inform Your Holiness, concerning the' 
following questions : 

1. The attending clergy are declaring their solemn loyalty - 
to the Holy See, to Your Holiness, as to the Head of the Holy Moth- 
er Church, successor of St. Peter, Vicar of Christ Jesus to whom 
from the very beginning we were the loyal children, which we also 
wish to remain to the last breath of ours. Even in days, when sad 
circumstances hinder our work in our territory, and which demand 
from us tremendeous s aerifies . 

2. We cannot find words to condemn the acursed sad circum- 
stances made by the K.O.V.O. Executive Committee, resolved and 
sent a fearless petition to Your Holiness. The sad, cruel, and what 
is more sent an ultimatum with slanted, false and perfidious facts 
It is impossible to wait for a reply. These proposals were reject- 
ed at the Congress July 26-28, 1933. We condemn this sad act total- 
ly and repeatedly, publicly we declare that we the priests of the 
true Church, do not accept any interference of the faithful in pu- 
rely Church matters. It is very painful for us, that the Committee, 
with such an authority and unheard method in the Holy Mother Church 
caused such a pain for you:: Holy Father, and for us priests and 
faithful, being branded with such a shame. 

3 . When! we solemnly and publicly condemn the Anarchy in our 
territory at the same time, we wish to express to Your Holiness , 
that with the help of God we are ready to take up the battle with 
the adverseries, if the circumstances would request it, be it mate- 
rial, in societies or in parishes etc. etc. We would use the best 


method available, to introduce peace, understanding and discipline 
in our Eparchy, as soon as possible. ( ADDENDUM OF THE CLERGY AS 

4 . From our part according our thoughts , we must inform Your 
Holiness that our hard work will have its fruit. If the celibacy de- 
cree will be revoked. We repeat, that with our bishops interveen- 
ing, Your Holiness hear, our request our petition. We also convinc- 
ed that for the sake of the salvation of souls it will be heard. 

When we repeat the above mentioned matter we humbly and repea- 
tedly petition Your Holinessess good will for us and especially we 
pray for Your Apostolic blessing. We always remain the loyal child- 
ren of the Holy See. (ADDED BY THE CLERGY) . 

After reading the above, the bishop announced , that who ever 
wishes to make a remark concerning the letter may speak . 

REV. ALEXIUS VISLOCKY: He began to describe the pitiful criti- 
cal conditions in our Eparchy .Describing all evils that are hap- 
pening at the meeting, which are fruitless. If our situation is so 
sad on account of signing the document and we cannot show anything 
good to our people the whole Conference is in vain. At present the 
people are purturbed, restless, and can loose confidence in the 
clergy. The people may rebel as in Russia or Spain; the same can K~ 
happen among our people too. 

Rev. Alexius Vislocky continued, bringing up examples from his 
own parish New York City . Then Father appealed to the clergy, ner- 
veosly requesting from them not to build an opposing wall with the 
signed resolutions against the people . Instead let us work in a 
friendly manner with them, capture their loyalty and console them, 
proving to them, that we are with the people; standing on the same 
platform and defending the Eastern Rite with all methods available 
All this would not have happened, the celibacy law brought it all. 

REV. MICHAEL ANDREJKOVICS : Approved the above said, adding his 
proposals : 

a) Seek all kinds of methods, which will bring forth the re- 
call of celibacy. 

b) Married seminarians, who concluded their theological stu- 
dies are to be ordained. 

c) Recall the suspension of the excommunicated, punished pri- 

REV. GEORGE THEGZE: Mistakes are made by those who are defend- 
ing celibacy and those who oppose it. All these recriminations we 
must stop. We all are undecided, undeterminable, uncertain, because 
we do not know exactly where we stand. At present we do not know 
does celibacy exist or not in our Eparchy ? We must make note that 
in spirit, we are against celibacy, that is how we were brought up 
and thought; we saw only married clergy. The condemnation of celi- 
bacy is born with us. If the celibacy law exists in our Eparchy, we 
all beg the Holy See, the Holy Father, to recall celibacy law, after 
making a study of it. My proposal is to send two well prepared pri- 
ests with instruction to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D.C. 
also to the Holy See to bring some kind of a solution. If the reply 
is negative, nothing else will remain for us, but to serve the rite 
further as priests of God. 

REV. ORESTES KOMAN : My opinion is the same as Fr. Joseph Hanu- 
lyas; If we are Greek Rite Catholics, then I want all the rights 
and privileges of the rite . To have wives is our privilege . The U- 


nion with the Holy See contains this privileged If not, how could 
we be married and be recognized by the Holy Apostolic See) .1 se- 
cond all that Fr. Joseph Hanulya and Fr. Michael Andre jkovics has 
proposed; I am ready, and will be ready to the end, EVEN TO OFFER 

REV. JOHN LOYA: I do not have any proposal only a remark, that, 
I am aggravated by Fr. George Thegzes thoughts and remarks. 

REV. NICHOLAS CSOPEY : Very weighty arguments were brought up 
by Fr. Alexius Visiocky, Fr. Michael Andre jkovics and Fr. Orestes 
Koman. We cannot permit the people to leave us, in these perilous 
dangerous days and enter into Schism who from immemorable days 
are propagating the break with the Holy Union, with the Holy See. 
Schismatics are everywhere among us. We must defend our faithful 
from the Schismatics, from the so called Orthodoxy. If the Holy 
See truely acknowledges our sad situation, as our bishop would re- 
port, the Holy Father with His Fatherly love would hear us and cu- 
re our wounds. 

I propose : 

1. To appease the faithful who are against celibacy , they are 
in the majority, they are with us, therefore we can be victorious. 

2 . Without the bishops help we are helpless , we cannot suc- 
ceed. The bishop must consider the sad situation in our Eparchy . 
Let the bishop forward our petition. 

3. We cannot help the unordained seminarians. The best we 
can do is to petition the Holy Apostolic See for a special favor r 
in this case. 

REV. JOSEPH SHAKALEY: I propose another conference to be call- 
ed, that would help to solve the celibacy question. 

To the above, Bishop Basil Takacs gave the following reply: 

Concerning the principle, I point to the sin of the so-called 
representatives of the people , who wish to usurp our Eparchys cler- 
gy rights, and to finish this evil deed, I will acknowledge your 
truth "Unicumque suum", but you must know your God given status 
that you are to lead, teach your faithful that the teaching of the 
Church is that we continue to be separated from the Dissident .... 
Church. I have stated in my previous letter you all understood. 

The teaching of the letter is as follows : 


The Pittsburgh, Greek Rite Catholic Eparchy clergy are turning 
to the faithful. 

Dear Faithful in the name of Christ our Lord. 

It is over two years, that missunderstanding is, which inflict- 
s wounds upon the immortal souls , is ruling in our Eparchy. 

Misunderstanding and hatred is reigning in our parishes caus- 
ing wounds not only among the clergy and the faithful, but, also a- 
mong the faithful themselves. At present this condition had taken 
up such a measure, that it is casting danger upon the Greek Rite 
Catholic Rusins of the United States of America. 

Dear Faithful: This situation cannot continue. We accepted the 
ordination as priests of Christ's Kingdom, we cannot solve matters 
ourselves and keep the faith. Our position and laws are eternal 
are holy, we cannot change them, only uphold the faith. Our call- 
ing, our obligation is eternal, cannot be changed, we must uphold 


this obligates everyone without an exception, i.e. all members of 
Hod's Kingdom, members of the Holy Mother Church. 

Dear Faithful: The foundation of Gods laws are divided into 2 
groups in the Church. 

1. The priestly. 2. and laity. Into these two groups . all be- 
long according their vocation - calling. The laws of Jesus Christ 
are understandable final and in its sense the clergy teach, bless 
and lead the laity purely in spiritual matters. The priest with 
his ordination accepts the teaching, guiding to sanctifi cation and 
obedience. No human power cannot change this fundamental law not 
even one of the Holy Mother Church. 

Dear Faithful: We the priests of this established Eparchy, turn 
to St. Paul who teaches : "Obey your superiors and be subjected to 
them, for they keep watch as having to render an account of your 
souls; so that they may do this with joy, and not with grief, for 
that would not be expedient for joy. (Hebrew XIII- 17) .End your 
debates, give up disobedience in the purely ecclesiastical and dis- 
ciplinary matters, remember what Luke says: Christ said, he who 
hears you, hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me; and who 
rejects me rejects Him who sent me " (Luke X-16) . 

What concerns the parishes, homes, upkeep and leadership, in 
the parish, all this is in the Eparchys statutes, soon to be pub- 
lished . 

Dear Faithful: When we are advising you about the above men- 
tioned matters, we wish to convince you, who always been faithful 
members of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin Eparchy, in the future you 
will not leave the road, which leads to the eternal kingdom. Let - 
us all pray devoutedly and continually that the kingdom of Christ 
our Lord will come, where the prophets, teachers, the First Priest, 
the King, who exercises His earthly power through an earthly Vicar, 
i.e., His Holiness the Pope of Rome, the successor of the Apostles, 
with the bishops and priests. Accept this declaration with filial 
love, which we published at the Conference in Pittsburgh, Pa. , and 
signed August 30, 1933. 

REV. IGOR MACKOV: I oppose the letter read, the conditions of our 
Eparchy cannot be corrected by signatures. I approve Fr Nicholas 
Csopeys proposal that the bishop is to petitition the Holy See to 
recall the celibacy law, even if it is necessary to get a special 

REV. DESIDERIUS SIMKOW: The signatures and promulgation of this 
letter will not be helpful. The K.oy.O. exists and only the bishop 
and the clergy can take away the leadership from che leaders of 
the Sojedineni je,and replace those who are working against celibacy. 
The Bishop replied: All this is only an empty talk, because you a- 
re aware , that the bishop and the clergy are to find a method to - 
defend the Eastern Rite. Why are we speaking about the defence of 
the mission, which is given to us, when this mission belong to us. 
Fr. Simkow , you must remember and not forget, that the faith- 
ful clergys obedience to the bishop must be publicly known every- 
where and at all times . . 

The Conference urges to send a letter to Michael Yuhasz,Sr .Pre- 
sident of the Greek Catholic Union - Sojedineni je, in which he will 


read, that the K.O.V.O. resolutions are condemned. The tenor of the 
letter is as follows: 


Mr. Michael Yuhasz ,Sr. Supreme President 
Homestead, Pa. . 

Hororable Sir : 

We the undersigned clergy of the Pittsburgh, Pa., Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Eparchy convened at a conference in Pittsburgh, Pa., wish to 
be assured in the following matters : 

From the bottoir of our hearts we expect that the agitations, - 
which are purely religious matters, which are led and continued by 
the Sojedinenije leaders, be stopped. This is a fact of how we are 
judging the unlwful interference in the Eparchial matters. We all 
are well aware, that the .Sojedinenije leaders are not prepared for 
that work and to take upon themselves much a responsibility .No poe- 
er belongs to them in these matters and therefore we are recalling 
the following. : 

1. The K.O.V.O. was organized by the Sojedinenije in Detroit, 

2 . The Convention says , that it give over all the national - 
matters to the K.O.V.O. organization. 

3. The Sojedinenije leaders, at the same time are the K.O.V. 
O. leaders. The Sojedinenije President at the same time is the Pre- 
sident of the K.O.V.O. 

4. The Sojedinenije official newspaper the A.R.Viestnik giv- 
es a full page to serve the K.O.V.O. 

5. The K.O.V.O. meetings are called by the Sojedinenije Pre- 
sident, who also is a president of the K.O.V.O. 

6. The K.O.V.O. Chairman is John Popp, who is the Sokol Soje- 
dinenije President. Even if the Sojedinenije is not responsible 
for the K.O.V.O. matters, but the leaders interfere in its work. - 
We the undersigned clergy, when we will explain intelligently, ... 
clearly all this to the faithful through our announcements. 

a) We do not acknowledge the K.O.V.O. Congress, their propo- 
sals, laws which were set in Pittsburgh, Pa., July 26-28,1933. 

b) We consider the resolutions void. 

c) We petition the Sojedinenije leaders not to help the K.O. 
V.O. in the future nor interfere in the internal matters of the Ho- 
ly Mother Catholic Church. 

Given at Pittsburgh, Pa. , August 30, 1933 

With full respect 

REV EMIL SEMETKOVSKY: Our signatures are worthless. A chance 
is to be given the suspended and excommunicated priests, that they 
repent for their sins, as the Holy Mother Church prescribes it. If 
they refuse, do not accept the offer, we are to name them Schisma- 
tics and the clergy not to recognize them. 

REV. JOSEPH JACKANICH: I second the Fr . Orestes Romans speach 
and proposals (Father spoke lenghtly defending the Eastern Rite 
Churches privileges) . 

REV. JOSEPH HANULYA: I condemn the present signatures, because 


they totally oppose the Holy Fathers direct letter. But make an AD- 
DENDUM to the letter, a petition requesting the recall of the celi- 
bacy law. 

REV. VALENTINE GORZO : I propose a modus agendi. It was accept- 
ed and at the same time I condemn the K.O.V.O.. We must do every- 
thing possible to stop this sad event in our Eparchy, 

REV. VALENTINE BALOGH : I propose peace and clarification of 
all matters by introducing some method to correct the sad situati- 
on in our Eparchy. 

REV. NICHOLAS CSOPEY : I propose that the letter to the Holy Father, 
that an addendum be added petitioning the Holy Father, to set peace 
for us. That would be possible by recalling the celibacy law. 

A permanent Council will consist of four priesta: Rev. Josepn 
Hanulya, Rev. George Thegze, Rev. Nicholas Szabados and Rev. Nicho- 
las Csopey, who will be working in these matters, i.e. ,, correspond- 
ing with the Holy Father. Composing Pastoral Letters for the faith- 
ful. ( BISHOP: They will be published every six months.). 

After the recess three documents will be prepared. The first 
one signed to the Holy Father to which an ADDENDUM will be added. 


Rev . s : 

Basil Berecz 

John Bajcura 
Michael Andrejkovics 
John Bovankovich 
Demetrius Darin 
Peter Dolinay 
Andrew Dzmura 
Theodore Fedas 
Valentine Gorzo 
Stephen Gulyassy 
Alexius Holozsnyay 
Georg Hric 
Joseph Jackanich 
Orestes Koman 
Michael Jackovics 
George Kandra 
John Koval 
Nicholas Kristof 
Anthony Kubek 
Michael Kaimakan 
Desiderius Simkow 
John Loya 
Michael E. Lukats 
Alexius Medvecky 
Anthony Mhley 
Vladimir Kapisinsky 
Paul Mankovics 
Gabriel Martyak 
Valentine Orosz 
Michael Morris 
Emil Nevicky 
Aurelius Petrik 

John Lukacs 
Ludovic Artim 
Eugene Berecky 
Valentine Balogh 
Nicholas Csopey 
Alexander Dolinay 
Desiderius Dubay 
Joseph Fetsko 
Cornelius Gribovsky 
Julius D. Grigassy,D.D. 
Joseph Hanulys 
M.S. Hranilovic 
John Hromjak 
George Michajlo Dr. 
Demetrius Yackanich 
John Kolcun 
Stephen Kozak 
Michael Krivonyak 
John Krusko 
Theodore Ladomerszky 
Basil Lipecky 
Stephen Loya 
Michael M Staurovky 
Igor Mackov 
Daniel Medvecky 
Joseph J. Mackov 
Joseph M. Mackov, Dr. 
John Murajda 
Nicholas Martyak 
Gregory Moneta 
Peter Racz 
Nicholas Petrik 


Stephen Poratunsky 
Michael Rapach 
Eugene Runtagh 
Nicholas Szabados 
Thomas Szabo 
Eugene Tabakovics 
Nicholas Stulyakovics 
Joseph Shakaley 
John Taptich 
George Simchak 
George Thegze 
Theodosius Volkay 
John Zavalidroga 
Alexius Vislocky 
Constantine Roskovics 
George Chegin 

Nestor Rakovsky 
Aurelius Petrik 
Emil Semetkovsky 
Rudolph Runtagh 
A. Bernatsky 
Nicholas Szabo 
Paul Staurovsky 
Andrew Stim 
John Sokol 

Desiderius Zutricky 
Andrew Symko 
Michael Warady 
Theophile Zsatkovich 
Eugene Petrasovics 
Vladimir Mihalics 
Alexander Papp 


THE Greek 

Rite Catholic clergy of the Eparchy of 
Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Dear Faithful : 

It is past two years, that in our Eparchy the struggle is con- 
tinued without stopping, which causes wounds on the immortal soul- 
s, and in parishes hatred, but even among the faithful themselves 
which reached such a hight, that if it continues, it could mean 
the destruction of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin Eparchys existan- 
ce. This struggle cannot continue any longer, because we the cler 
gy of Christs Kingdom, ordained priests, cannot look at the 
struggle any longer with folded hands. It destroys faith, voca- 
tion and endangers the heavenly fundamental law, which . law we 
must earnestly and inviolabily, uphold, which law obligates with- 
out exception every faithful, who are members of this Kingdom, i. 
e . , the Holy Mother Church . 

The heavenly fundamental law is given to the Church, having 
two rules: the priestly and the lay law. These laws cannot be 
mixed by man, because the law of Christ is written so clearly and 
finally, which means, that the priestly law is to spread its au- 
thority in teaching, to keep it sacred and govern it. Whereas the 
lay law is, that in spiritual matters the faithful must accept, be 
obedient, to the teaching and the sacredness . This is a fundamen- 
tal law of the Church., which cannot be changed by no earthly pow- 

We follow this law in our Established Eparchy as priests. St. 
Paul says: "Obey your superiors and be subject to them for they - 
watch to render a n account of your souls, so that they may do 
this with joy and not grief, for that would not be expedient for 
you" (Hebrews 13-17) . 

Set aside all the debates, questions, disobedience in religion 
and Church laws and understand the words of Christ, said by St. Lu- 
ke: "He who hears you, hear me, and he who rejects you rejects me, 
and he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me". (Luke 10-16.) . 

The church benefice, donations, the support of the Eparchy, 


the internal matters of the parish will soon be set. 

Beloved Faithful in Christ. With joy we are notifying you, 
that the Eastern Churches rights and privileges also the present 
strifes of which the main cause is, i.e., the celibacy to stop. We 
the clergy of our Eparchy unanimously state, that the necessary 
moves were made in understanding with the bishop. Therefore we 
have hope that our petition will be heard. 

We also say to you, dear faithful, that the K.O.V.O. Congress, 
which was held July 26-28, 1933 in Pittsburgh, Pa., priests pre- 
sent protested against the Congress unlawful resolutions. We all 
who are present at the Clergy Conference, join in protest and ex- 
claim that no priest cannot sign the above mentioned resolutions . 

Dear Faithful: When we notify you about the above mentioned, 
we are convinced, that you, who were loyal in the past to the 
Greek Rite Catholic Church, you will not turn off this path which 
leads us to the Heavenly Kingdom. 

We are praying humbly and sincerely, that Jesus Christs pro- 
phesy and His teaching Kingdom come among you. He is the High 
priest and King, who gave his authority to his successor , the Eb~ 
pe of Rome, the Holy Father, the successor of the Apostles, Bish- 
ops and the ordained priests to administer. 

Accept this letter with filial love, which was signed and gi- 
ven to you from the Clergy Conference of Pittsburgh, Pa August 30, 

SIDNATURES of the clergy vidi'p. 210 

The Conference ended 6.30 P.M., with a prayer. 

The bishop in his Pastoral Letter No 149-1933 of September 1, 
1933 of the Clergy Conference, gives the decisions of the confe- 
rence, which decisions are to be upheld strictly by all the Epar- 
chial clergy. 

Bishop's Chancery 
Homestead, Pa. 

No. 131-1933 July 30, 1933 

Mr. Michael Yuhasz, Sr. 
Homestead, Pa. 

Respectable Sir: 

The articles which appeared in the A.R.Viestnik in the past 3 
years confused the thinking of the people and resulted in the or- 
ganizing of the K.O.V.O. at the Sojedinenije Convention. With this 
act the Sojedinenije over stepped its boundries, because it is the 
exclusive right of a bishop to defend the purity of the RITE. The 
bishop never renounced this right of his. On account of this reason 
I informed the clergy to resign from the K>O.V.O. Committee. 

Contrary to this, the K.O.V.O. still continued to exist. In. the 
A.R.Viestnik it had a special page and the matters . went so far, 
that you without any external pressure called an Ecclesiastical Na- 
tional Congress for July 26, 1933. 


All who know well our affairs are aware how the Congress end 
ed and what was the result. Truely it did not serve our glory, on 
the contrary it brought great shame for us before the Catholic 
world . 

At this congress many schismatic clergy took part. Under the 
pretext that it is a National Congress, they justified their pre- 
sence. Since when is it a custom, that unbelievers have the right 
to be present at decisions of our internal religious matters ? 

According the law of the Holy Mother Church, an Ecclesiasti- 
cal Congress can be called ONLY by a bishop; only he can presri- 
be its program. Therefore I am firmely protesting against intru- 
sion into the bishops authority. An intrusion which wishes to 
change the law of the Apostolic See and the Eparchial Bishop. At 
the same time I declare that the Congress was totally invalid 
and its resolutions null and void. 

Until the present day the Sojedinenije played a great roll in 
out Churches affairs in the United States of America. Now this - 
unfortunate Congress is trying to destroy our Church. Time is pas- 
sing and I hope that the Sojedinenije is taught in the future not 
to forget its Greek Rite Catholic character and will try to heal 
the spiritual wounds caused by its untactful move. 

Please, present this letter to the Board of Trustees of the 

Accept my episcopal blessing I remain 

your affectionate Father 
in Christ 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 

I received the following reply to the above letter. 

Concerning your letter of No 131-1933, I am sending the follow- 
ing reply: 

We believe and are convinced, that the right to guard the pu- 
rity of our rite, first of all belongs to Your Excellency. We the 
officers of the Sojedinenije do not know of any occasion, when we 
mixed into the rights of Your Excellency. Still we have a discip- 
line and privilege strictly tied with our Eastern Catholic, rite 
Church, which according the opinion of the past Convention were 
not defended, but forcefully without a foundation are violated 
This contempt of our rights and privileges arosed a great unrest 
among our people faithful to their rite. The consequence was the 
organization of the K.O.V.O. at the Detroit , Michigan Convention. 

This K.O.V.O. called the Congress, at which the delegates re- 
presented the people, not as members of the Sojedinenije, but as 

representatives of parishes and Branches; also Your trusted cler- 
gy took part in it. For the acts of the delegates and, for the re- 
solutions of the Congress no one can accuse us legally or morally. 

We firmely refute the accusations of Your Excellency, that the 
Sojedinenije and its Board of Trustees has caused spiritual wound- 
s with its bad move. On the contrary the Sojedinenije did every- 
thing possible for the sake of peace, harmony and progress. 

According to our opinion at the Congress the frame of mind of 
the people was disturbed by the violation of rights and law, pri- 


vileges and discipline of our Eastern Rite. Peace may come only - 
by the recall of the reason of the struggle, i.e., the introduc- 
tion of celibacy, and perfect order in the Church administration, 
by an intensive work. Our conviction is that the sooner this hap- 
pens, the struggle will stop, so will the Passive Resistence and 
all will line up into a right wheel print and the desired peace 
and progress will begin. 

The accomplishment and realization of all this depends exclu- 
sively on the Church Authority. We as officers in this manner 
trust in you, to gain this goal, to secure our laws rights ,pri 
vileges and discipline of our Eastern Rite and the respect of our 
Rusin national interests. We the undersigned officials and the 
Board of Trustees of the Sojedinenije are willing to give our mo- 
ral and material help at once. In case of a refusal, we place the 
blame en distroyers of our rite. 

We sadly view the consequences of this struggle, which we are 
not strong anough to stop, aslong as the reason of this struggle 

We deem it necessary to remark, that the officials of the So- 
jedinenije are not responsible for the Congress. And still we 
say, that according to our knowledge no schismatic clergy, nor - 
laymen were approved, or took part as delegates. 

With great respect kissing Your Excellency's hand, we remain 

Your humble children in Christ. 

Michael Laputka Rev. Michael M Staurovsky 

Nicholas J. Solak Rev. Desiderius SLmkow 

Andrew Hleba Rev. Stephen Varzaly 

Michael Kopasz Michael Yuhasz, Sr. 

ANNA V. Piatnik John Popp 

John Mocosko Dr. George Varga 

George Bovankovich Mrs Anna Kalnas 

Michael Pecuch Michael Dunay 

Rev. John Krusko Justine Skarlos 

George Yuhasz George H. Komlos 

Michael Antonik John Masich 

Peter J. Mackov Michael Timko 

George I. Puhak John M. Herock 

Michael Yuhasz ,Jr. Joseph Morris 

Frank Habzsansky. 

BISHOP BASIL TAKACS: This diplomatic reply by Michael Yuhasz , 
Sr. i.e. the officials of the Sojedinenije hiding facts, - proves 
that there is no sincerity in them, and they wish to place the bur- 
den on the shoulders of others. Although the organization is still 
of a Greek Rite Catholic character, on this foundation it has no 
right to dictate to the Church. They even admit, that the K.O.V.O. 
is an active organization in the Sojedinenije, which does not want 
to take the responsibility of its activity. The reply is simular - 
to the Delphian proverb. There is no hope that they would take a 
humble stand and repair what can be corrected. 

On account of this reason it is necessary, that the clergy u- 
nanimously take a stand. Let everyone declare his intention, opi- 
nion. The Rpman See is holding on to its standpoint. There is no 


other way before us , only to obey . Take account of the consequenc 
es. I do not doubt that the majority of the clergy, as I mentioned, 
will remain loyal to the Church. But, we must stop our present neu- 
tral conduct and step out publicly following the example of the 
Confessors. Express your standpoint openly and recrute the faithr 
fulffor yourself. Even at present 50-60 percent of the people ha- 
ve a Catholic standpoint, loyal to the Greek Rite Catholic Church 
united with Rome and do not want to hear about schism or indepen- 
dency. This we are to utilize and recrute a fighting camp. It is 
necessary to unite a self consciencious fighting element against 
the enemy, and not to stand on the side line, holding your hands, 
waiting for the end of it. 

I am asking you Fathers, that you all express your stand and 
your opinion by name. Then we will all be ready waiting for the 
worst to come and will understand ourselves. 

I repeat, that I do not think that I am mistaken in the loyal- 
ty of the clergy. First of all it is necessary for us to become 
active. Step up in the press, brotherhoods, parishes and place 
ourselves purely to the Church position, attitude. 

1. First of all we must turn to the Holy Father, to dull the 
K.O.V.O. ultimatum and assure the Holy Father of our loyalty, with 
a promise, that we for the sake of healing the present sad situa- 
tion are ready to make a sacrifice. 

2. Publish a general announcement for the people, in which 
announcement we will declare, that we condemn the struggle, which 
for the past three years infected part of our faithful. We do - 
natrecognize the K.O.V.O., not its resolutions, not considering 
them competent to illegally mix into the Church affairs. As a sta- 
te cannot exist within a State, neither can a Church exist in a 
Church within a Church. 

3. The clergy are to notify the Sojedinenije about their 
standing, in writing and verbarly, also with the weight of your 
position, requesting that the Sojedinenije is not to mix into the 
Church affairs and put an end to the K.O.V.O. activities. In case 
of need, you should turn to the State Department to restrict the 
Sojedinenije to interfer in Church matters. 

I am asking you Fathers to consider the above matter accept it 
as yours and talk over the simular questions. 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 


A.R.Viestnik October 5, 1933 
p. 1. 

To His Holiness, the Pope of Rome, Pius XI. 

Vatican City. 

Your Holiness: 

On July 26-27-28, 1933 we held in Pittsburgh, Pa. .United States 
of America the Religious National Congress of the Greek Rite Cathol- 
ics of the Pittsburgh Eparchy. Representing the parishes and the 
people were present 311 delegates, 45 priests and 60 cantors. 

This Congress was the culmination of a three year old battle 


for the preservation of our rights and privileges , a battle which 
is fast destroying the religious and moral life of a half million 
Carpatho Rusin Greek Rite Catholics in America, and which is de- 
trimental to the Catholic Church in general by focusing the atten- 
tion of all non-catholics to our sorry plight and to the unmerci- 
ful and unjust administration of the Carpatho Rusin Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church in America united with Rome. 

Hie purpose of calling this Congress was put into concrete 
form the demands of the American Greek Rite Catholics of the 
Greek Rite Catholic Eparchy of Pittsburgh, Pa., to restore order 
and to make secure its future welfare. 

This Congress decided that the undersigned, as a committee - 
selected for that purpose, sent to the Roman See and to the Apos- 
tolic Delegate at Washington, D.C. , a copy of the enclosed resolu- 
tions of the said Religious National Congress. 

For that reason, we as a committee as above set forth trans- 
mit and herewith enclose the resolution as adopted by the religi- 
ous National Congress of the Carpatho Rusin Greek Rite Catholics 
in America united with Rome. 

Signed this 14th day of August, 1933, by the Executive Commit- 
tee of the Religious National Congress at the Carpatho Rusin 
Greek Rite Catholics of America 

Most Humbly Yours 
Stephen Sterenchak Andrew Hleba 

Rev. Stephen Varzaly Rev. Peter Molchany 

Peter Korpos Dr. George Varga 

John Furda George Jogan 

John Lois 


Par. 1. We stand firmly by the covenants of the Union of Uz- 
horod--Ungvar, entered into the year 1646, and we demand that the 
Roman See observe the conditions of said Union of Ungvar and the 
inviolability of the Eastern Rite. 

2. We demand that celibacy and latinization be recalled from 
the Eastern Church in the United States of America, once and for 
all times. 

3. We demand, the recall of Bishop Basil Takacs and his cabi- 
net. If this not be done, then we will forthwith cease to pay the 
cathedra ti cum. We do not acknowledge him as our bishop. 

4. We demand that penances, suspensions and excommunications 
be lifted immediatly from all priests and laymen in our Eparchy , 
that peace may be restored among the clergy and the people. 

5. We deamnd, that immediate ordination of our present mar- 
ried seminarians, who have completed their studies, and also at 
the proper time of those who in the future shall fulfill the will 
and requirements of our Eastern Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

6. We demand, that in accordance with the terms of the U- 
nion of Ungvar, a bishop or an administrator , who is a citizen - 
of the United States of America, be elected from among our Ameri- 
can Rusin clergy. 

7. We demand, that we have our representative? in the Congre- 
gation of the Eastern Rite, who shall be chosen from among the A- 
merican Rusin priests in America. 


8. We demand, beginning today, our name be Carpatho Rusin , 
instead of "Ruthenian" of the United States. 

9. We demand, that our Eparchial By-laws be made for the 
whole Pittsburgh Eparchy, regulating both the clergy and the can- 
tors, their rights, salaries and stole, as well as the whole - 
school system. The Congress shall nominate two priests, two can- 
tors and five civilians who are to compile the By-laws . 

10. We demand, that all church property be recorded in the 
name of the parish, that neither the bishop, nor the priest be 
trustee, that only the parishioners, not fewer than five in num- 
ber, shall hold these offices. 

11. We demand, that no parish shall pay a priest who oppo- 
sess and work against the rights and privileges of the Greek Rite 
Catholic Church . 

12. In the event that the Roman See be not inclined to re- 
spect cur rights, which were guarenteed to us by the Union of Ung- 
var in the year 1646, and does not take into consideration the de 
mands of this Congress within 60 days, we all the people /together 
with our churches and the clergy shall break relations with the - 
Roman See for so long a time as our demands are not acknowledged, 
that is, we shall become independent from Rome. 

(In the Eparchy of Pittsburgh Greek Rite, were 150 priests at 
the time of celibacy, and only six were celibates) . 


Prosvita, McKeesport,Pa. 
October 19, 1933, p. 4. 

We found out from the newest Pastoral Letter, that Fr. Stephen 
Varzaly , Editor in Chief of the A.R.Viestnik, a few days ago ap- 
peared in the bishops residence and there before the bishop seri- 
ously announced his sorrow for the sad situation caused in the 
past few years by him editing the newspaper. He seriously promis- 
ed , that in the future he will strictly abide by orders. He so- 
lemnly declared, that he with all his might will try to do as 
much as he can , to correct the harm done . 

On the foundation of this serious announcement, and in the 
signing of a declaration of Fr. Stephen Varzaly, Bishop Basil Ta- 
kacs , by his authority lifted excommunication and other Church - 
censures against him and he was accepted as a member of our Epar- 
chy's priests. 

The above news gives us great satisfaction, because from the 
part of the repentant, it shows the move of the Prodigal Son, and 
from Bishop Basil Takacs , who with the clergy, ignored his unmer- 
cifull attacks, it shows a mark of an overwhelming Christian Fa- 
thers mercy. 

We firmly believe and hope that our beloved brother in Christ 
Fr. Stephen Varzaly did not only promise, but will carry into ac- 
tion with all his energy his promise. 

Fr. Valentine Balogh 
Prosvita Editor 



Pastoral Letter April, 17, 1934 

Mr. Michael Yuhasz, Sr. 
President of the Sojedinenije 
and the Board of Trustees. 

The general opinion of the Higher Circles and me, after following - 
attentivily the activities of the A.R.Viestnik, the organ of the Soje- 
dinenije for the past six months, is that with sorrow, we assertain , 
that of the A.R.Viestnik does not defend the character of the Greek Ca- 
tholic Sojedinenije, but decidedly opposes it, because the articles op- 
pose the Holy Father and the Holy Congregation of the Eastern Rites - 
Church authority, impetuously rushing to a full destruction of the 
Church discipline, even thou secretly, indirectly, is twisting and fal- 
sely presenting matters which oppose the Churches standing. 

The Greek Rite Catholic Church in the United States of America ,in 
the past saw hard times; a great struggle was led on the Ecclesiasti - 
cal National terain, considering the deeds of moral view, it never sank 
so deeply. As the A.R.Viestnik is going, we see not a struggle for a 
principle, but for a church bolshevism, where forbidden methods are 
fighting, not for the truth, not for the laws, but to mislead our peo- 
ple who deserve a better fate. 

No matter who or what kind of person and reads the A.R.Viestnik , 
claiming to be a Greek Rite Catholic, he can say with a clear conscien- 
ce, that it is not a Greek Rite Catholic newspaper. It is not written 
in such a spirit, as the organization requests, but represents a schis- 
matic spirit or the independent directive, to shake up and destroy re- 
ligion, the Christian conviction of our Rusin people .and preparing 
them for a full religious Bolshevism. 

This cannot continue. Many members of the Sojedinenije who are 
faithful to their religion and rite, are known as practical Greek Ri- 
te Catholics and wish to be them in the future, they are protesting a- 
gainst all of this. 

The A.R. Viestnik Editors and Spiritual advisors of the Sojedine- 
nije are intending to lead the Sojedinenije into Schism of Indepen- 
dency. That is evident, at present in that they are permitting and 
publishing sermons of schismatic priests on the pages of the A.R. Vies- 
tnik. What a result of such a move will be, what it will mean for the 
Podkarpatski Rusin people, anybody can see the death of it in the free 
land of the United States of America. 

Let the President and the Board of Trustees well consider the mat- 
ter. Where have the members of the Sojedinenije been led morally, when 
in the A.R.Viestnik unresponsible elements are teaching our poor Rusr- 
in people according the Bolshevik prescriptions trampling with their 
feet over all our Church laws and the highest authority. 

I think, that now even the President not the Board of Trustees 
can endure or tollerate it any longer. Therefore I as a bishop, am - 
asking you put an end to this unpleasant situation, because if you 
will allow this further on and with one operation will not correct 
it, you are placeing yourselves and all of us as Greek Catholic Orga- 
nization to a great contempt , before the faithful public. Save all 


that can be saved, because if matters will continue, we will not - 
only stand in front of Schism, for which we will be responsible - 
to God and people . 

This is my Episcopal obligation to inform you in the name of 
the salvation of our faithful people. Please stop and save our re- 
ligion and people. 

With my Episcopal blessing I remain 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 

Prosvita. May 24, 1934. pp. 4-5. 

1. The Rusins of Podkarpathia and Eastern Slovensko before 
the 17th century, belonged to the Greek non-united religion. In 
this century however, they gradually commenced to unite with the 
Holy See (A.D. 1646, 1652, 1664, etc.) Hodinka Antal "History of 
the Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of Munkacs" pp. 295-319; 543-565. 
Hodinka Antal : "Codex of Documents" Nos 112-159). 

2. According to acceptable data, the first Union with the 
Church of Rome occured on April 24, 1646, when 63 non-united pri- 
ests from the provences of the present Eastern Slovensko and Wes- 
tern Pod-Carpathia appeared at Ungvar, and in the chapel of the 
Fort placed solemn vows of obedience into the hands of Jakusics 
the Roman Catholic Bishop of Eger. At that time they placed noth- 
ing in writing of this. The fact of the Union happened orally. (Ho- 
dinka Antal "Codex of Documents" No. 117,122,125. Hodinka Antal 
:" History of the Bishopric of Munkacs " p. 297) . 

3. In 1648 the clergy following their ancient custom, after 
the death of Basil Tarasovics , elected Peter Parthenus , a religi- 
ous of the Order of St. Basil the Great, who in September of that 
year, with a number of his priests, appeared at Trnava (now Wes- 
tern Slovensko) , where the Hungarian Roman Catholic clergy were 
holding a national Synod. At this Synod Bishop elect. Parthenius , 
announced that he and all the priests who elected him likewise , 
the faithful under their care, had decided to unite with Rome and 
requested the National Synod to: 

a) accept them as uniates . 

b) acknowledge Peter Parthenus as their bishop, and 

c) recommend them to the good will of the King. 

Of this announcement, promise and request, there directly re- 
mained no written document, but from a later document of January 
4 , 1660 , we know that the Synod received the announcement of the 
Union with joy, and gladly received the Uniates and entrusted Geo- 
rge P. Lippay, Princ Primate of Hungary, with this task of procur- 
ing confirmation of Peter Parthenius both at the Holy See, and the 
King. (Hodinka Antal: Codex of Documents: Nos. 117-141. Hodinka 
Antal:" History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of Munkacs", 
pp. 308-309-336-337) . 

4. Primate George Lippay was well aware that the Union 1 
should be reported to Rome and likewise, the plea of the Priests 
that Peter Parthenius be confirmed by the Pope, should be fulfill- 
ed. This fact, however, expressly contained this, that Rome sanc- 
tion the right of the Ruthenian priests to elect their bishop and 
hereby, implicitly, acknowledge the bishopric of Munkacs. Primate 
George Lippay, likewis -, knew that this latter question is the 


most delicate, for if this were accomplished the rest naturally - 
follow. He therefore, commenced his action here. Quite late it is 
true, for he wrote to the Pope, but on July 23,1651. In this commu- 
nicrtion he does not even mention the name Parthenius , but refer- 
red that in the territories of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Esz- 
tergom and Eger scismatic Ruthenians live in large numbers, of whom, 
many, both priests and faithful, have already promised obedience - 
to the Roman Catholic Church, further 400 more priests desireing - 
a Union also petitiotioned him, but announced this wouid be possib- 
le only if the Holy Father were to establish a Greek Rite Catholic 
Bishopric for them. He, therefore, asked the Holy Father to do this. 
To this communication there came no answere from Rome. Primate G. 
Lippay then of his own accord, appointed in September 5, Peter Par- 
thenius Visitator of the Ruthenians (Rusins) of Hungary and on Sep- 
tember 10th, once more wrote to the Pope announcing that he had al- 
ready written to the Holy Father regarding the Union of Schismatic 
Ruthenians (Rusins) and requested a separate bishop for them . In 
the meanwhile the priests united, or already on the way to Union, 
without his knowledge, will and consent, elected Parthenius, a Ba- 
silian monk, and with the greatest haste, had him consecrated by a 
Schismatic bishop, with the assistance of two other Schismatic Bi- 
shops. Therefore, according to the method demanded by the Greek Ri- 
te Church, to the title of the bishopric of Munkacs. This action - 
naturally, was a faulty one, that would only be reminded by the Po- 
dition of the return of the priests, otherwise the whole Union 
would fail. At the end of his letter Primate George Lippay states 
that the consecrating bishop explained incorrectly that he George 
Lippay, by appointing Peter Parthenius Visitator, sanctioned his 
episcopal election. Although they discussed the first and second 
communication. NO ANSWER WAS RECEIVED FROM Rome regarding them . 
( Hodinka Antal: Codex of Documents ,Nos 116,118, 119, 120,121,123 
Hodinka Antal: History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of Mun- 
kacs. pp338-34-. 

5. In the meanwhile, Peter Parthenius, Bishop -elect, in the 
beginning of year 1652, called the clergy to a meeting, at which 
a petition to Pope Innocent X. dated January 15, was written, This 
writing is the famous Union document ! Its original text was in 
Rusin (Ruthenian) , but that has been lost and may be found only in 
the Latin text which was sent to the Chapter of Pozsony February - 
15, 1665. This document is complied in a peculiar way. Six Arch- 
deacons discribing therein the first meeting of the 63 priests in 
1664 signed it. But in the front they placed the names of all who 
afterward signed the Union. This catalogue, however, also was 
lost. Within all probability, the Union of the second part of he 
clergy accurred then in 1652 and this in such a way that these 
priests (who perhaps numbered 400) simply attached their signatur- 
es to the document formed at the meeting of 1646 and thus they ac- 
quiesced to the Profession of Faith made in 1646 and the three con- 
ditions appearing therein. It is significant that in this document 
the clergy and their letter with the request that PeterParthenius 
be confirmed as a bishop.. In the writing of this document, the- 
refore, the chief aim was not to report the Union to Rome. George 
Lippay had already done that.) But, Peter Parthenius, elected Bi- 


shop, gathered the clergy to a meeting in 1652 and had the petition 
dated January 15, written, that Rome acknowledge the Bishopric of 
Munkacs as a regular canonical bishopric and Peter Parthenius as a 
regular diocesan bishop. This Union Document is but one exibit in 
the process of this question. (Hodinka Antal: Codex of Documents Nos 
119-122. Hodinka Antal: History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop- 
ric of Munkacs. pp. 340-341) . 

6 . Primate George Lippay did not send this document , dated Ja- 
nuary 15, 1652, to Rome ( according to the testimoney of the files 
of the Sacred Congregation for the propagation of the Faith; this 
happened only in December 17, 1711, but on July 19, 1652, he sent a 
new communication to Rome, not directly to the Pope, but to the Sac- 
red Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. knowing that His 
Holiness transferred this matter there, and asked for the confirma- 
tion of the elected, but irregularly consecrated bishop Peter Par- 
thenius . The Sacred Congregation requested full information informa- 
tion regarding the matter. Primate George Lippay sent his informa- 
tion to the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith on 
July 2, 1654, whereas on November 16 of that year the matter was 
transferred to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office as the 
competent Forum for absolution from irregularities . Upon recommen- 
dation of the Sacred Congregation, the Pope on May 13, 1655, gave 
Primate George Lippay of Esztergom permission to confirm Peter Par- 
thenius in spite of the fact that he was irregulary consecrated . The 
Papal "BREVE" regarding this was issued June 8, 1665 where permis- 
sion was granted Peter Parthenius to freely exercise the rights of 
bishop, both of order and jurisdiction, over the Ruthenians Rusins 
of entire Hungary. Upon receipt of this, Primate George Lippay, in 
a solemn announcement to the United clergy isssued July 12,1655 ab- 
solved Bishop Peter Parthenius, proclaimed him to be a true lawful 
bishop confirmed by the Pope and finally gave him jurisdiction over 
all the Ruthenians Rusins in Hungary. ( Hodinka Antal: Codex of Docu- 
ments Nos. 124,126,127,130,131,134. Hodinka Antal:History of the 
Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of Munkacs. pp. 341,350). 

7 . From the above it is evident .... that . . . Primate George 
Lippay had accomplished one request of the United Ruthenian Rusin 
priests tendered at the national Synod of Trnava (Nagy Szombat) , for 
they had a bishop confirmed by the Pope. The confirmation of Peter 
Parthenius however, did not mean the ratification of the right of 
the clergy to elect their bishop, nor the acknowledgement of the Bi- 
shopric of Munkacs as such. The Ruthenian clergy was informed of 
this only in 1715 and this is the cause of their second petition 
(Hodinka Antal: History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of Mun- 
kacs. p. 350. (The first bishop of Baltimore was elected by the cler- 
gy aHd approved by the Pope. Bishop John Carroll, consecrated Au- 
gust 15, 1790. Vidi: "The Catholic Encyclopedia" 1908, Vol. Ill, p. 
383 ) . 

8. Primate George Lippay, likewise, fulfilled another desire of 
the Ruthenian Rusin clergy expressed at Trnava (Nagy Szombat) , nam- 
ly that of recommending Peter Parthenius to the King. This was even- 
tually accomplished. That petition of the Ruthenian Rusin clergy was 
granted when King Leopold I. In his Royal diplomas, promulgated on 
October 23, and November 10, 1659, appointed Peter Parthenius as Bi- 
shop, and simultaneously, emphatically announced that this appoint- 
ment falls within the ambitus of his rights considering . his regal 


power of patronage, that was also exercised by his predecessors . 
This says King Leopold I. was done since the time of St. Stephen , 
whose right of patronage and providing bishops for Catholic Sees 
exclusively, doubtlessly to the King and Crown of Hungary. After - 
the promulgation of these royal diplomas, Primate George Lippa al- 
so issued a solemn public decree on January 4, 1660, in wjiich he 
proclaims Peter Parthenius as a lawful bishop of Munkacs appoint- 
ed by the King. (Hodinka Antal: Codex of Documents .Nos 138 -147. 
Hodinka Antal: History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of Mun- 
kacs , pp. 350-360.)/ 

PROSVITA- ENLIGHTENMENT , May 31,1934. p. 4. (1655 - 1918 ). 

9 . The Ruthenian Rusin clergy and laity united with Rome from 
1655, did not disturb the so-called "UNION DOCUMENT"; they did not 
do this chiefly, because the secular benefits asked by them namely: 
privileges, liberties, immunities and exemptions, assured by the 
Primate on May 14, 1648 were granted not only by some Lords but the 
United Greek Rite Catholic clergy on August 16,1692 received from 
King Leopold I. himself a letter of privilege which justly may be 
called the "MAGNA CHARTA" of the Ruthenian Rusin united Greek Rite 
Catholic Clergy. ( Hodinka Antal: Codex of Documents .Nos. 113, 129, 
220,268,456. Hodinka Antal: History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bi- 
shopric of Munkacs . pp. 326,327). 

10. The question of the Union document appeared only in 1712. 
Then Charles III. became King and he, following the footsteps of 
his predecessor, desired to appoint as Apostolic Vicar Michael Ho- 
dermarsky, who was elected by the clergy, but whom the Holy Roman - 
See was under no consideration willing to accept. Charles III. to 
prove his truth on May 6, 1712. Writes to the Pope saying that the 
Ruthenian Rusin clergy, most recently found documents relative to 
the nomination of Peter Parthenius. This can be gathered from these 
documents (notes Charles III) , that the Ruthenian Rusin clergy at 
the time of the Union, reserved for itself the free right to elect 
their bishop, and again, that in 1652 Pope Innocent X. confirmed- 
Peter Partenius who was elected by the clergy and he (Parthenius) , 
it can be proved, used the title of the bishop of Munkacs and acted 
as such. (Hodinka Antal: Codex of Documents . No 453.;Hodinka Antal 

History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of Munkacs .p. 481 

11. The clergy started action simultaneously with the King - 
and in the month of December 1712 gathered at a synod in Munkacs , 
from where they sent petitions, one to the Pope, and two to the - 
Prince Primate, in which they announced that they understand with 
suprise the fact that the Bishopric of Munkacs is not canonnized , 
and for this reason Michael Hodermarsky, elected by them cannot be 
named bishop. They note, that their schismatic bishops were for a 
century and half consecrated to this title, and besides, their pre- 
decessors in 1652, reserved for themselves the right to have bish- 
ops elected by them and confirmed by the Holy Apostolic See this 
reason, they asked the Pope to recognize their bishopric and con- 
firm Michael Hodermarsky. They asked the Primate and the Sacred Con- 
gregation for the Propagation of the Faith to intercede for them be- 
fore the Pope.. The Prince Primate, on February 15, 1713 informed - 
the clergy that he sent the petition with his recommendation to Ro- 
me, and asked them to await decision. To this petition no direct - 


answer came from Rome, but it was several times announced that - 
Michael Hodermarsky, elected by the clergy, shall never be confir- 
ed by Rome . (Hodinka Antal .Codex of DocumentsNos . 460,462,463,465, 
467,469,470,473,475. Hodinka Antal: History of the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Bishopric of Munkacs . pp. 482, 492. ) . 

12. One of the most important occasion in the history of the 
Ruthenian Rusin Greek Rite Catholic clergy, was the Synod of pri- 
ests held on March 7, 1715 in the Basilian Monastery of Munkacs . 
All the priests of the bishopric came to this conference, just as 
they had done on January 15,1652. At this conference they formed 
three petitions, of which the first was sent to the Holy Father 
the second to the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith 
and the third to the Prince Primate. In these petitions the cler- 
gy openly referred to the conditions appearing in the Union Docu- 
ment of 1652. In the notable third article of their petitions the 
one sent to the Pope and the Congregation for the Propagation of 
the Faith, they expressed themselves as follows : "Since Prince Te- 
odor Koriatovics about 300 years ago endowed, and the Hungarian - 
Kings , ratified, the Bishopric of Munkacs, what His Majesty 
throughout the lenghtly controversy between himself and the Holy 
See amply proved by sufficient documents and we also are ready to 
prove, we strenuosly cling to the election and the appointment of 
the one elected by His Majesty, and with the consent of all, con- 
sent of all, announce that neither in the present, nor future, 
shall we together with our successors accept and allow an Aposto- 
lic Vicar to be sent to us, being satisfied, in the future, with - 
the bishop elected, or to be elected, by us, from whom we solely 
demand that he hurry not to receive consecration as soon as pos- 
sible. (Hodinka Antal: History of the Greeek Rite Catholic Bishop- 
ric of Munkacs pp. 504-508) . 

13. The Prince Primate upon this, on March 27,1715 sent a 
letter to the clergy, in which he asks, that a few of them, who 
are familiar with the articles of the Synod, come tc him to Po- 
zsony before Easter and bring with them the documents.: 

1. regarding the "UNION". 

2. the establishment of the bishopric of Munkacs and 

3 . their other privileges , so that they may inform him and 
he Rome. 

Irreparable foult then happened. The clergy ignored the call. 
If ever, now was the first and last opportunity to assure their 
rights of electing their own bishop. Not one priest appeared at 
the Prince Primate palace and the petition adopted by the Synod 
was transmitted to Rome as received. (Hodinka Antal: Codex of do- 
cuments . p. XIV. Hodinka Antal: History of the Munkacs Greek Rite 
Catholic Bishopric of Munkacs . pp. 503-508) . 

14. The Sacred Congregation for the Faith discused the peti- 
tion of the clergy on May 7, 1715. The referent was Cardinal Alba- 
ni . The procedure was as follows : "The King of Hungary clings to 
the appointment of the bishop, the clergy to election; but these 
two desires presume the existance of the bishopric. How does the 
question stand ? Michael Hodermarsky, bishop-elect ,on December - 
17, 1711, sent a letter about the Union dated 1652. In this it is 
stated that the clergy elected Peter Partenius bishop and asked 
the Holy See to confirm him. The Sacred Congregation, since the 
clergy immediately had him consecrated, answered at thatjtime". If 


If the Pope deem it fit, he may later confirm him". The Sacred 
Congregation hearing and understanding this , at one of its former 
sessions, decided: this confirmation does not reveal the fact 
that the church in Munkacs has become a legally mentioned church 
is endowed with income and other means of sustenance that are ne- 
cessary for the establishment of a cathedral church. There is the- 
refore, no place for the appointment for the King, let the Pope 
send an Apostolic Vicar. This Congregation, however, announced - 
that a search be made in the files of the Sacred Congregation of 
the Holy Office whether there is any document there regarding 
this from years 1651-1654. Among the documents they found but one, 
of May 13, 1655, by virtue of which Peter Parthenius was absolved 
from censure incurred by being irregularly consecrated. In addi- 
tion the Primate sent two letters, but they only prove that Peter 
Parthenius was absolved, confirmed not as bishop of Munkacs, but 
as bishop residing in Munkacs, (as bishop) of the Greek Rite Catho- 
lic Ruthenian Rusin inhabitants of Munkacs and other places in 
Hungary. Such a bishopric did not exist and was never established 
as can be proved by the memorandum of the Primate of 1655. Upon 
the basis od these documents the referent expressly declared that 
this bishopric exists only "in the air", it is only having the na- 
me which was given by the schismatics a fact acknowledged in 1708 
by the priests themselves, and as the Primate then wrote, stating 
that the bishop did not have the title of Episcopal See of Mun- 
kacs, but was only styled as such. As result the royal appointment 
may be proved, nor the right of the priests to select, admitted . 
(Hodinka Antal : History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of 
Munkacs . pp. 510-512.). 

15 . After this explanation the Sacred Congregation announc- 
ed that both the Prefect of the Propaganda, and the Secretary of 
State, write to the Nuncio of Vienna: 

a) to seek a person suitable for the Apostolic Vicariate; 

b) inform His Majesty that this person may not be Michael 
Hodermarsky, who was elected by the clergy. 

c) ask the support of the Primate of his own accord ,on June 
6, 1715, turned to the King with a petition that he recommended 
to the Pope" the appointment of Bizanczy as Apostolic VicarMichael 
Hodermarsky, seeing this the loss of his cause, on Novembefr 14,- 
1715 through the mediumship of the Primate, resigned fromthe Bis- 
shopric and withdrew to the monastery. The King accepted his re - 
signation and immediately submitted the name of Bizanczy, whom the 
Primate recommended to the Pope for appointment on June 6 . (Hodin- 
ka Antal : History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of Munkacs 
pp. 512-513- 

16. Thus did Hodermarsky Michael fail and with him, the 
King lost the right of appointing ,and the clergy the right of e- 
lecting. It is true that on August 10, the clergy held a meeting 
of protest at Munkacs and Homonna, the minutes of which were sent 
to the Bishop of Eger, into whos hands Bizanczy had placed the 
vows of obedience and promised to force the clergy to obedience - 
also But the affair had already had gone so far as to make it im- 
possible to heed the protest of the clergy. The primate on August 
26, 1715, ordered the bishop of Eger to seriously reprimand the 
clergy, which does not want a Vicar, or bishop, except one whom 
they elected: "Being that the election does not depend uopn their 


will" (Hodinka Antal : The History of the Greek Rite Catholic - 
Bishopric of Munkacs . pp. 513-514) . 

17. The Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of Faith 
on January 14, 1716, once more discussed the question of appoint- 
ment and once more announced, that the bishopric of Munkacs does 
not exist, and therefore there can be no right of appointment re- 
served for the icing. (Hodinka Antal: History of the Greek Rite - 
Catholic Bishopric of Munkacs . p. 514) . 

18. The question was finally disposed of at the canonization 
of the Bishopric of Munkacs in 1771, when the Holy See decreed - 
that in the future, appointment of the bishop of Munkacs, shall oc- 
cur according to the custom in vogue with other bishoprics of the 
country, namely: appointment by the King and the confirmation by 
the Pope. (Hodinka Antal: History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bish- 
opric of Munkacs. pp. 622-625) . 

19. The situation prevailed upon the cessation of the Apos- 
tolic Kingship in Hungary, A.D. 1918, and when the new State of 
Czechoslovakia was formed, the right to appoint bishops of Mun- 
kacs reverted back to the Holy See . ( Nomination of Peter Gebe and 
Alexander Stojka) . 

20. Concerning the real value of the Union document, Hodinka 
Antal a great historian has this to say : " It is impossible to re- 
fer to the Union of 1652, since Rome never saw them, nor confirm- 
ed them. And a one sided agreement does not bind the other side. 
(Hodinka Antal : History of the Greek Rite Catholic Bishopric of 
Munkacs . pp. 508- 509) . 



Pros vita. June 7,1934. p. 4. 

By the grace of Christ elected Most Holy Father and Universal 
Patriarch. We the priests the innate sons of the Holy Greek Rite 
and the inhabitance of the Apostolic Kingdom and who are register- 
ed through the counties in the list of our names , known that the 
royal sacrament should be hidden, but the work of God should be 
revealed and be manifested more clearly than the sun to all peop- 
le, as such one, through the inexpressible goodness and mercy of 
our God towards the rational creature used to be declared. There- 
fore, fixed unto this principle and angelical rule we let know 
before the whole world, to Your Holiness and we announce and we 
extol with praises rising to heaven, namely, that by the grace o§ 
God and our Saviour, which was liberally defused into us by the 
operation of which the most lovable glad tidings of the salvation 
of the souls, and by the abdication of the Greek Rite insane .... 
Schism, we have taken back, and we have rebretrothed to the imma- 
culate Virgin, to the Spouse of the Only Begotten Son of God, 
that is to say to the Holy Roman Church, which without any guilt- 
ness of her, up to this day had been hated by us. This very re- 
duction of ours had been done in the year of salvation 1649, on 
the 24th day of April during the reign of Ferdinand III., the Sac- 
red Roman Emperor in the Latin Church of the Fort of Ungvar , on 
the grounds of the Rig"ht Honorable Count George de Homonna, which 
was there. The Rig"ht Rev. Bishop of Munkacs, Tarasovics, who has 
already departed from among the living, who by having followed 


the tenets of the Schismatics and Heretics, broke the fetters of 
theHoly Union, he publicly renounced the announcement of the Ca- 
tholic Church. Perceiving this the venerable Father in Christ the 
Lord George Jakuszics, Bishop of Eger, who is already resting in 
Christ with him the Rev. Basilian Fathers invited for this pur- 
pose, the Father Peter Parthenius, who today is our Bishop and 
the Rev. Gabriel Cassovicius, he invited us most kindly through 
his letters to Ungvar, and delivering us an opportune sermon a- 
bout the Holy Union through the aforsaid Fathers, who he had in 
mind, by the Holy Spirit disposing us so, he effected it most ra- 
shily, and he set up the feast of St. George the Martyr for the 
profession of the Faith. On that day, we, 63 priests, assembled ha 
ving followed the aforsaid Bishop of Eger into the above mentioned 
church. Having celebrated the mystery of the Sacrifice without the 
shedding of blood in our Ruthenian language, and some of the pries t-. 
s having confessed their sins sacramentally , we pronounce the Pro- 
fession of the Faith publicly with audible voice the prescribed 
for. That is to say "we believe all and everything that our Holy 
Roman Mother Church orders to believe, we profess our Holiest Fa- 
ther Lord Innocent X. , to be the Universal Pastor of the Church 
of Christ and of us , we profess , that we wish and want to depend 
upon Him with our successors, but, with these added conditions: 

1. that we be allowed to keep the Greek Rite. 

2. to have the bishop chosen by us and confirmed by the A- 
postolic See. 

3. to use freely ecclesiastical immunities, to which the Bi- 
shop easily consented. The same thing had been approved in the 
year of 1648 by Benedict Kisdi, Bishop of Eger, with his Vicar Ge- 
neral while the Rev. Father in Christ Thomas Jaszberenyi, S.J. reli- 
gious was assisting. This affair of ours in the highest degree 
stenghtened by the paternal solicitude of the Right Rev. Prince - 
of Hungary George Lippay Archbishop of Esztergom, who had been 
visited twice by the delegation consisting of the aforesaid Basi- 
lian Fathers; also the Right Rev Bishop of Vacz, Lord Matthew Tar- 
noczy, to whom we are bound in perpetuity 

By letting know Your Holiness all these matters, we humbly and 
unanimously ask the paternal benediction, the promotion of our af- 
fairs and confirmation of the Rev. Father Peter Parthenius , the Bi- 
shop-elect by us. 

Ungvar, year 1652, 15th day of January, the obedient servants 
the Greek Rite priest 

Alexius Ladomirsky, Arch-Deacon of Makovica 

Stephen Andreas, Arch-Deacon of Spis 

Gregory Hostovicki, Arch-Deacon of Homonna 

Stephen Arch-Deacon of Strena 

Daniel Ivanovics, Arch-Deacon of Uz. 

Alexius Filipovics Arch-Deacon of Sztropko 

( HODINKA ANTAL, "Codex of Documents" No. 122, pp. 163-166; NILLES 
" Symbolae" p. 141. ; Bazilovits J. : "Notitia Fund. Koriato- 
vics". 824-827. ". 



June 8, 1655 

To the Ven. Brother Archbishop of Strigonia (Esztergom) from 
Alexander. VII. PP. Brother , Health and Apostolic blessing: 

When you petitioned our predecessor Innocent X. of blessed me- 
mory and after his death, humbly petitioned us, who have been 
raised to the summit of the Supreme Apostolate, that we, in order 
that he may exercise the pontificals and other offices of this or- 
der, deign to confirm and benignly dispense, irregardless of his 
consecration by three Schismatic Bishops, Peter Parthenius, a Ru- 
thenian Catholic priest of the Order of St. Basil, elected Bish- 
op of the Ruthenian inhabiting Munkacs and other places; the matt- 
erhaving been maturely discussed at the session held in our pre- 
sence of the Supreme and Universal inquisition, and suff raged by 
the votes and council of our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, ge- 
neral inquisitors in defense of Christian Republics, placed a- 
gainst heretical gravity, we, to your fraternal grace upon confin- 
ding in your rectitude and prudence in the Lord, and ' in order 
that the above mentioned Peter Parthenius may labor in behalf of 
the salvation of the souls of those concredited to him, and that 
he may, with greater zeal and solicitude, apply himself to the 
conversion of heretics , and schismatics and after placing upon 
him, according to your judgement, some salutary penance, grant you 
the faculty to absolve Peter Parthenius, providing he humbly asks 
you, from whatever censures suspensions he has incurred and from 
every irregularity that he might have contracted in the aforesaid 
circumstances and in order that he may enjoy and diligently exer- 
cise over the Ruthenians of the Greek Rite of Munkacs and of the 
other regions of the Kingdom of Hungary, designable by you the 
Pontifical offices of episcopal order and jurisdiction, we, not- 
withstanding the apostolic and other general or special constitu- 
tions and ordinances , issued by universal provincial or synodal 
councils, and the rest in whatsoever manner contrary, hereby ,by 
virtue of our Apostolic Authority and the tenor of these presents, 
grant and impart the necessary and opportune faculty of benignly 
dispensing him from the aforementioned. 

Given at Rome, at St. Mary's the Major, under the pontifical 
ring on June 8, 1655, in the first year of our pontificate. 

( HODINKA ANTAL"" Codex of Documents" No 131, pp. 177-178; Ba- 
zilovits Joannicus : "Notitia Fund. Koriatovics" Vol. II. pp. 69-70) . 



Prosvita , July 5, 1934. pp. 4-5. 

Before the new Code of the Canon Law became binding, the De- 
crees of the Plenary Council of Baltimore were in force in the 
United States. To prove this we cite the following decrees: 

"Finally, in order that the decrees of this Plenary Council 
be better understood by all our priests and more efficaciously 
brought into practice, we order that when after their approval by 
the Holy See they shall be published, they be used as a norm rule 
in our schools of Canon Law and Theology, which the Professors in 
teaching shall explain and follow and all the students diligently 


BALTIMORE II. A.D. 1866, No 534. p. 271.). 

" Everything decreed by the Second Plenary Council of Balti- 
more clearly shows that wisdom and prudence the Fathers of the 
Council used in bringing the laws which the spirit of those times 
demanded. We should not omit the Fathers, by approval of the Holy 
See ( Titulus XIV. De efficaciori Decretorum Baltimorensis Execu- 
tions Promovenda) ordered this as a norm (rule) , which the Doc- 
tors in the school of Canon Law and Theology shall follow and ex- 
plain, and which their students shall accurately and diligently 
learn. We announce, therefore, and decree that all institutions 
and decrees of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore shall re- 
main in force and the clergy of all ranks and laymen are bound to 
render them honor and obedience excepting only those that perhap- 
s may be changed by this Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. 
1884, p. 3.). 

Regarding the right of Patronage the participators .'of the 
Councils clearly brought the following decrees: 

" The Ius Patronatus and the right of appointing and dismiss- 
ing pastors, claimed by some bodies of trustees, is repugnant to 
the doctrines and discipline of the Church, and that no right of 
patronage, known to the sacred Canons, is vested in any board of 
trustees, or other persons, or congregation of the laity, or any 
other individuals in the province; that no collections of money 
for church purposes has given any right of patronage recognized 
OF BALTIMORE, A.D. 1829, No. 6.). 

" Since during different times weighty disorders arose in the- 
se States for the reason that laics, especially trustees falsely 
usurped the right of Patronage and (what is most amazing) , the 
right of appointment to parishes and missions, what more, that they 
desired to elect their pastors, or missionaries, even against the 
will of the bishop, and to hamper these in their duties, likewise 
againt the bishop; or those approved by the bishop they rejected, 
or forced to depart, or impeded them in the performance of thier 
duties by refusing them the necessities of life, or by othei: me- 
ans; it is known that the times for sinister reasons even some 
priests favored such attempts; we, standing up on the basis of the 
answers of Pius VII, of holy memory, and of Leo XIII, and the Sac- 
red Congregation by this our decree announce that the right usurp- 
ed by kaymen, whereby they appoint or dismiss their pastors, is 
throughly repugnant to the teaching and discipline of the Church; 
and we further announce that in this province no right of Patron- 
age (jus patronatus) whatever acknowledged by the Sacred Canons 
is due to any person, congregation of laics, trustees, or any per- 
son whatever. We also declare that stipends, or any subsidies , what- 
ever, which the faithful give for places they occupy in church, or 
for the priests give the churches or missions , or to the fund of 
the church building, or that a church be built (which aid is most- 
ly given by collection of money and without stipulation of the gi- 
vento the church) does not constitute the right of patronage (Jus 
patronatus) acknowledged by the Sacred Canons. (ACTS AND DECREES 


Canon 1450 6f the Codex Juris Canonici, in force since 1918 , 
clearly state that: in the future no right of patronage may be va- 
lidly created by any title. 

It is apparent from the above that the so called jus patronatus 
was never binding in the United States. 


Pros vita. June 28, 1934, p. 4. 

To the question of the A.R. Viestnik, I reply: "layed aside, - 
not known, lost". What was the reason that it happened as said ? 

The question of the A.R. Viestnik states: I repeat: Most pro- 
bably the officer of the Latin Rite clergy stole it. 

Among others I read with interest and verbally in the 
follows : 

1. "Not finding the document up to the present day is not a 
proof, that it was not composed; all the more, because it mentions 
about the conditions. Most probably this document was layed aside 
by an interested group, because the document contained great right- 
s for the Greek Rite CLERGY. So it happened that it has not to be 
found to the present day.(Vidi. A.R. Viestnik No 22., p. 5. 1934.). 

2. The minutes of this meeting were written. This is the opi- 
nion of known historians, even though these minutes also are not 
known nor uncovered to the present day. (Vidi: A.R. Viestnik No 23 
art . 4 . ) . 

3 . Where could the Ungvar Union document be ? ... Lucskay 
expresses such an opinion, that most probably the first document 
concerning the Union was given to the Drugeth family, or to the - 
Csaky family, or to the Wandernot family. It is suprising what we 
cannot understand that HODINKA ANTAL, did not look for these docu- 
ments in Nagy Szombat (Trnava) and Esztergom, not in the archives 
of mentioned families. (Vidi: A.R. Viestnik No 23. part 4.). 

4 . " About the Union of 1646 , there was a written document , 
but. this document got lost, not found to the present day. It is pos- 
sible that the original document was destroyed, because Bishop Ja- 
kuszics and George Lippay thought that they promised too much to 
the Rusin clergy, they were too generous when they guarenteed all 
that the Rusin clergy requested in the conditions of the Union. 
(Vidi: A.R. Viestnik No. 23, p. 4.) . 

5. It is possible, that the Primate George Lippay did not 
care to present the conditions to Rome, and if there is no docu- 
ment in Rome of the 1646 Uinon. we can ascribe to the Eger Bishop 

and Primate George Lippay , that they themselves restrained 

the rights and privileges of the Uniates, as much as it could been 
done. (Vidi: A.R. Viestnik, No 23, p. 4.) . 

As a matter of fact, the A.R. Viestnik and its Editor acknow- 
ledges it, that no such document can be found.. 


Pozsony-Bratislava March 31,1655 
Prosvita, McKeesport,Pa. 
July 12, 1934. p. 4.). 


It is generally known that until 1848 in Hungary "FEUDAL SYSTEM" 
existed, i.e. that not all the citizens had the same rights , because 
there were Masters (Panove) , Gentlemen (Slachty) , Noblemen (Menesi) 
and the subjects the servants (Sluhi) , Colonist soldiers (Kmeti and 
the Vassals (Jobbadd'i) , Feudalist peasants. 

So were our Rusins divided in the so called KRAJINACH (Counties) 
which were as follows: 1. Makovica Krajina, 2. Sztropko Krajina, 3. 
Humenne Krajina, 4. Ungvar Krajina, 5. Munkacs Krajina and Huszt 
Bocsko Krajina. 

Each Krajina had its Master to whom our Rusins were subjected, 
i.e. our ancestors, the schismatic clergy were also subjected to 
them. They were the Colonist soldiers (Kmety) , who were obligated 
to give their Masters a) money .b) wax or candles, c) Fox - hide 
swine, sheep, bees, e) working days to collect hay, deliver grain 
from the field, etc. etc. 

From these obligations were exempt the IMMUNES, i.e. Roman Ca- 
tholic clergy, beside this they also had a special Church Freedom 
(libertates) , privileges (privilegii) . Uvolnentes (exemptiones e. 
g. a) Who ever struck a priest he was expelled from the Holy Mo- 
ther Church, b) . A layman cold not judge a priest only with the 
permission of the Bishop, c) If the priest had financial trouble 
his whole property could not be liquidated. So much of his proper- 
ty had to be left for him to live honestly and exist, d) A priest 
was not permitted to be a guardian, or public officer, e) The 
church was exempt of tax and permitted to build churches churches 
any place, and have as many church bells they wanted, etc. 

When the Union was made with th« Holy Roman See in 1646 in - 
Ungvar ( at that time only four KRAJINI accepted the Union) . The 
clergy selected a bishop (not the laymen) Parthenius Peter, who - 
accompanied with his clergy appeared in Nagy Szombat (Trnava) whe- 
re the Roman Catholic clergy of Hungary had their National Synod. 
There they announced to the Synod the Union of the Rusins . the re- 
sult was that among others this document was found, which was dat- 
ed May 14, 1648 by Prince Primate George Lippay of Hungary, in 
which document is promised the security of our Rusin clergy, then, 
already Greek Rite Catholics, had privileges, liberty, immunity and 
exceptions. (Vidi: HODINKA ANTAL: "Okmanytar" Ungvar 1911 No 113 
pp. 154-155). 

The promise of the Prince Primate became only an empty promi- 
se, but it became a fact, because some of the Masters of Krajina 
and finally the Kings of Hungary gave the same privileges to the 
Greek Rite Catholic clergy as the Latin Rite Catholic clergy had 
in Hungary. So our ancestors clergy became free (Libertini) who 
lived freely in peace on their porochial land. 

If some one wish to make a greater study of this matter, let 
him read "OKMANYTAR of Hodinka Antal (Latin): 1. No 111, p. 153 
2.) No 129, pp 176-177. 3.) No 220, pp 263-266. 4.) No 268, pp. 
347-350. 5.) No. 456, pp. 580-583. 6.) No 512, pp. 635-638; etc. - 
or read the History of the Munkacs Eparchy pp. 712-759. 

M A R C H 31. 

We George Drugeth from Homonna, eternal graf of Ungvar and 


of the same County, Consultor of His Majesty Emperor and King, His 
Camer ar ,etc. 

We recommend reminding all who are interested, that we, to whom 
the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins with Bishop Parthenius Peter, Bi- 
shop of Munkacs and with the rest of the Rusin clergy united with 
the Holy See of Rome, for this reason as for the love of God and 
the Catholic Church, which led us, and by the fatherly interveen- 
ing of George Lippay Archbishop of Esztergom etc... We agree on 
the below given conditions . 

1.) that the validly ordained Rusin presbyters, united with 
the Catholic Church, we will hold, acknowledge them as true, va- 
lid priests and that our officers will hold and acknowledge them 
as such. 

2) That with the mentioned Rusin priests in the future . no 
one of our officers will dare to strike or arrest them, or troub- 
le them with some other inconveniences, but, if some one of them 
would of sinned, he will be punished by the Munkacs Bishop accord- 
ing the Holy Canons and Constitution; and if the crime would de- 
mand, to be degraded, then he could been presented to the civil 
authorities; If he sinned against the general law, he is present- 
ed to the Bishops Court, which will investigate the crime accord- 
ing the law, in the presence of our officers. The. judgement may 
come to our discretion and the execution will also belong to us. 

3) The labor which he has done until now, he will not be 
forced to do, he who serves the Church and parish; Such Pastors; 
We will be satisfied if everyone will pay six Florints for the se- 
ssion held where he is dwelling annually, as it was in the past, 
For the other sessions, if he is not dwelling there, and only o- 
thers administer it instead of him according the custom, they are 
the ones to do the labor. Also those priests, who have no parish, 
are obligated to work as the village people do. 

4) We authorize the Bishop of Munkacs , to buy property in 
Ungvar or a house for a school; for which no labor nor tax will - 
be requested. It will be free of tax. 

5) The Munkacs Bishop will be free in his activities, to ma- 
ke visitations of his subjects , throughout our properties . 

For the validity and testimony of this document, given in Po- 
zsony- Bratislava March 31, 1655 A.D. (HODINKA ANTAL "OKMANYTAR" 
No 129, pp 176-177 


Sojedinenije Kalendar 1922 
pp. 182-188. 

The fate of the Podkarpatski Rusins was always a unfortunate 
one. Especially during the times of Masters (Panstvo) , when tjhe 
clergy and the people suffered mostly. The Masters held the Rusin 
clergy and people in slavery. 

The Rusin people suffered for a long time, until the spirit - 
of time brought for them freedom from enslavement, but, even now 
we could not say that they were totally free. 

The clergy many a times turned to the Sovereigis of to the 
Kings with petitions to lighten their burden, complaining about 


oppretions, under which they were subjected, the people also took 
in all kinds of revolts and fights for freedom of religion and na- 

Finally the clergy as a more educated body of people, to free 
themselves from all burdens, their only hopeful method was, to u- 
nite with the Latin Rite Church in a Union. 

Besides this was the persuasion of a soul saving necessity ac- 
cepting the dogmas of the Catholic Church which affected the cler- 
gy and the people, lightening the burden of both. An agreement 
testifies to this, when the Union of Ungvar was established April 
24, 1646, on St. Georges day in the presence of 63 priests who as- 
sembled in Ungvar. 

The minutes of the Ungvar Union did not see light to the pre- 
sent day about the events of the agreement of the Union and its 
conditions. We know of a later dated letter of January 15, 1652, ad- 
dressed to Pope Innocent X. in the matter of approving the elec- 
tion of Bishop Parthenius Peter (Rostosinsky) . This is the time 
of the Union's completion, placed 1649. 

( Haec vero millesimo sexcentisimo quadrogesimo nono aprililis die 
vigesima quarta) . FRIEDLER: "Bietrage zur Geschrichte der Union - 
der Ruth, on Nord Ungarn" Seite 507 ) . 

Many historians did not pay much attention to the last words 
of the document, the mentioned expression was taken without any 
remark and marked the complition of the Ungvar Union April 24,1649. 
But, as it appears on the document of the completing of the Church 
Union, Bishop George Jakusics of Eger was present, being, that Bi- 
shop George Jakusics died November 21,1647 and in 1648 Benedict 
Kisdy was the Bishop of Eger. It is clear, that in the mentioned 
document a mistake crept in and that the most probably by the La- 
tin language translation, that instead of 1646, 1649 was written. 
The mistake could of happened, because the original document was 
written in the Church Slowanic language and the numerals also. As 
it is known they were wriiten in letters and not numeral figures, 
i.e-: V y^M S = 1646 , -^ x"M Q = 1649 


Pastoral Letter July 13, 1934 
No 156/ 1934. 

In the A. R. Viestnik No 28, July 12, 1934 an article appear- 
ed under the name of Michael Yuhasz,Sr., President of the SOJED- 
DINENIJE Greek Catholic Rnsin Brotherhood; "AN OPEN LETTER" peti- 
tion of the Sojedinenije President, clearly appears to be his in- 
tention to find out the standing and opinion of our clergy con- 
cerning CELIBACY. He intends to discuss the question with the So- 
jedinenije Board of Trustees. If the majority of the clergy will 
request him to stop, then the Sojedinenije will not take part in 

I, from my part presuppose, that the President had a clear 
and good intention, concerning his questioning. There is no doubt 
that this expression of his : " I acknowledge , and all the members 
of the Board of Trustees also admit that in Church matters and 
decisions our clergy have priority". He is expressing the Cathol- 


ic standpoint. Still exofficio, I am forced to inform you Spiri- 
tual Fathers of the following: 


1. On the foundation of Laws of our Holy Mother Church, lay- 
men, absolutely cannot mix into exclusively "priestly" matters. 
Such is the question the "CELIBECY OF CLERGY". Not even the Presi- 
dent of the Sojedinenije has a right to mix into question of ce- 
libacy. He still has less right, to turn to the clergy of my E- 
parchy without my permission and acknowledgement. 

2. It is a false statement, that: the clergy did not express 

their standpoint as one body, , clearly and formaly. On the - 

contrary, it is true that my clergy August 30, 1933, as one body 
clergy and formaly expressed its "declaration" and sent it to 
the Office of the Sojedinenije. (Vidi: A.R.Viestnik No 38 Septem- 
ber 21, 1933. p. 3. c. 1.). 

3. Canon Law reserves the right only to the Eparchial Ordi- 
nary to threaten the clergy with penalty, therefore not only the 
laity, but even the clerical persons are not provided with such 
an authority. This was a daring move, when the President of the 
Sojedinenije threatened our clergy. 

4. The statement is erroneous, that:" Who is silent, he ag- 
rees". The principle of the Canon Law is: "Qui tacet,dum loqui - 
verbuisset, consintere videtur". In Church matters my clergy do 
not have to reply to the President of the Sojedinenije, but to - 
Church authority. 

May my clergy orientate itself about the open petition of Mi- 
chael Yuhasz ,Sr., President of the Sojedinenije. With this I ad- 
vise you Reverend Fathers, that at present the official standpoint 
of our clergy in our Eparch-, in matters of celibacy is the same, 
as it was expressed in the declaration, about which it speaks in 
No 2 paragraph of my standpoint. 
Accept my Episcopal blessing 

Your affectionate Father 
In Christ 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 


A.R.Viestnik September 5, 1934. 

Meeting held at the recommendation and decision of the Board 
of Trustees August 1-7, 1934 in Scranton,Pa. 

The meeting commenced 11.30 A.M. 

The members of the Committee present who were selected by the 
assembly to go to Bishop Basil Takacs, to talk over the situation 
concerning celibacy: John Popp, President of the Sokols, Michael 
Yuhasz ,Sr. , President of the Sojedinenije, Michael Laputka, Pre- 
sident of Controllers, George Komlos, Finacial Secretary, John Ma- 
sich, Financial Secretary of Sokols, Joseph Morris, Treasurer, 
George Puhak Legal Advisor, Anna Kalnas , Vice-President of Sojedi- 
nenije, Andrew Hleba, Controller, Peter Zeedick,M.D. of the Soje- 


dinenije , Fr. Michael Staurovsky, Spiritual Advisor, Fr. D.A.Sim- 
ko, Spiritual Advisor, all Sojedinenije Officers. 

Members of the K.O.V.O.: Dr. George Varga, Vice President of 
Sojedinenije, Peter Zeedick, M.D., Michael Yuhasz, Sr. , Sojedineni- 
je President, Fr. Desiderius Simko, Sokol Spiritual Advisor , Peter 
Korpos, Michael Laputka, Basil Slivka, Fr. Constantine Auroroff , 
Stephen Sterenchak, William Gvozdiak, John Popp, Fr. Michael Stau- 
rovsky, Peter Maczkoy, Sokol Eiitor, Albert Cmor, and Fr. Ste- 
phen Varzaly. 

To the meeting were also i ivited the original members of the 
K.O.V.O., who were elected by the Convention in 1932, in Detroit, 
Michigan. Not present Fr.s Joseph Hanulya, Michael Andre jkovics , 
Orestes Koman, George Chegin and Gregory Ssatkovics. 

The Session was opened with a custumary prayer. 

Michael Yuhasz, Sr ., Chairman , John Masich, Rec. Secretary 

Michael Yuhasz, Sr. requests from the present members what and 
how is the Committee appointed at Scranton,Pa. , to speak with Bi- 
shop Basil Takacs.? 

FR. MICHAEL STAUROVSKY: I recommend that the committee ask the 
Bishop to go to Rome, as he promised at the Clergy Conference con- 
cerning celibacy, because the bishop can do the most in this matt- 

JOHN POPP: I recommend, that the committee request a written 
reply from the bishop, to have a document of his promise. 

MICHAEL YUHASZ, SR. :The reason for the many misunderstandings- 
is the neglect of some Eparchial Officers. Certain persons , laymen 
and clergy are considered "non grata persona" in the Chancery of- 
fice, the reason is, because they humbly and openly tell the truth 
These persons even if they would petition with their best inten- 
tions, their petition would not be considered at all. On the oth- 
er hand, there are persons who are in the bishop's grace, whos 
words, recommendations are not practical nor harmful, they are 
considered important, directives. Michael Yuhasz, Sr., illustrates 
his thoughts with an example: Fr. Julius D. Grigassy, when troub- 
le began in Clairton , Pa . , he declared, that he does not care even 
if the whole parish will go to schism. The bishop made many seri- 
ous promises, which were never kept, because Fr. Theophile Ssatko- 
vics Chancellor influenced the bishop, to go contrary of his pro- 

PETER KORPOS: I have the same opinion as Michael Yuhasz, Sr., 
We have proof that the bishop does not realize the holiness and 
seriousness of a given word, even if he signs his name, we could 
not be sure, of the result of the promise. Truely,this happened 
frequently in course of time. The influence of the officers or - 
consul tors had its weight. Example: It happened that the Cantor 
Teachers were promised officially, later signed in January 1,1932, 
that they will receive one third of the stola. This promise is 
still not brought to life. With such a move the bishop caused a 
sad impression and bitterness against himself among the Cantors 
Teachers . 

ANNA KALNAS : I request information concerning the situation of 
those members of the Sojedinenije, who were excluded or excommuni- 
cated from the Church by the clergy or on the recommendation of the 
clergy, who acted enviously towards our Organization, whos bad tac- 
tics are the reason of disorder in the parishes. 


MICHAEL YUHASZ, SR. , I have knocked at the bishops door many 
a times, asking him, to request more practical activity from his 

MICHAEL LAPUTKA: I am reminding the members of this session, 
that we are geting away from our goal. Those who organized the 
K.O.V.O., the committee did not appear, this is a proof that the 
K.O.V.O. is not able to lead in the given work as it was decided 
at the Detroit, Michigan Convention. We must continue our strug- 
gle, according the directive of the Convention, under the leader- 
ship of the Sojedinenije Officials. I also recommend to ask for 
a written promise from the bishop to the given question. If .the 
bishop refuses to do so, then by all means send a committee to 
Rome, to present our situation and to receive a reply or a deci- 
sion from the Apostolic See. 

PETER IV. ZEEDICK,M.D. : I do not believe that you will be ab- 
le to get an audience from the Pope of Rome, without the consent 
of Bishop Basil Takacs. 

MICHAEL LAPUTKA and JOHN POPP: It would be possible to send 
a committee to Rome only with the consent of Bishop Basil Takacs, 
but it would be still better if Bishop Basil Takacs would go 
olong with the committee. 

FR. DESIDERIUS SIMKOW: The Memorandum of the clergy was gi-. 
ven to the Holy Father. 

Dr. GEORGE VARGA: I recommend to the committe to ask Bi- 
shop Basil Takacs to take off the Church Censure off Fr. Orestes 
Chotnock, Fr. Peter Molchany and ordain the married seminarians 
who concluded their studies. Also, that the bishop take part in 
the struggle against the forceful introduction which is foreign 
to our customs, discipline and celibacy. Let him become a defend- 
er of the inviolability of the Eastern Rite. The struggle is too 
continue, also a committee is to be sent to Rome. 

GVOZDIAK : The situation in certain parishes in the Chicago, 
111. territory are in a sad situation, where some of the priests 
do not care about the customs, laws , and the voice of the peop- 
le, they provoke the people, and the people are asking the bishop 
to help them, all is in vain, they do not even get a reply from 
the bishop. It seems to me that parishes are to buy their way,e.g- 
Fr. Alexander Papp, Dean, told the South Chicago, 111. committee 
if you want help, to get a priest, give over the $5,000.00 that 
you have in the church treasury. Another case: He said to the 
committee, for $100.00 monthly salary we cannot give you a priest 
he needs $100.00 for weekly expenses. In the Chicago, 111. terri- 
tory our people are suffering, because they cannot get a priest 
in some parishes they took in an Orthodox priest, because the Bi- 
shop did not want to give them another priest. In Gary and Whit- 
ing Indiana, the parish is about to divide on account of selfish 
politics of the priest. 

If the just request of the people in the Chicago, 111. , terri- 
tory would be fulfilled, the people would have peace, and those 
who left the church would return. The people were forced by the 
Church authority to leave the Church. 

ALBERT SMOR: I second the statement of Gvozdiak. 

Fr. DESIDERIUS SIMKOW: Celibacy cannot be introduced into li- 
fe without the approval of our clergy. To the present time the - 
clergy expressed themselves against celibacy. It is a fact, that 


the Memorandum was presented to the Holy Father in Rome . 

GEORGE PUHAK: There are fakers (crazy fanatics) among the 
present group, who think that with a good understanding the stru- 
ggle could be finished in 24 hours . 

FR. MICHAEL STAUROVSKY : Ihe clergy fulfilled their obligation 
when it expressed its opinion and sent its petition to the Holy 
Father. I recommend that the Sojedinenije make the proper moves 
through the Apostolic Delegation. It is necessary for us to in- 
form the Delegate about our present unhappy situation. 

MICHAEL YUHASZ,SR. : I hereby appoint the folloeing commit- 
tee: Fr. Michael Staurovsky, Fr. Desiderius Simkow, Dr. George - 
Varga, Dr. Peter Zeedick, Albert Smor, George Puhak, Stephen 
Sterenchak, Michael Laputka to compile the questions to be asked 
of Bishop Basil Takacs. 

FR. CONSTANTINE AUROROFF : I request an explanation of why Fr. 
Orestes Chornock was not invited to this meeting ? 

MICHAEL YUHASZ,SR. : I invited only those members of the K.O. 
V.O. whos names were in the Minutes of the Detroit, Michigan Con- 

John Masich, Rec. Secretary. 

SESSION held at 3.00 P.M. 

Recording Secretary Albert Smor.. 

The appointed committee by the Chairman, to compile the ques- 
tions to be asked of Bishop Basil Takacs, were chosen at the 
Scranton, Pa., meeting. They presented and recommended the fol- 
lowing : 

1. It is necessary to ask a recommendation for the commit- 
tee from the bishop, about to go to Rome to knock at the door in 
the interest of rewoking celibacy to save the Church from a futu- 
re harms. 

2. It is necessary to ask the bishop, if it ispossible£h»t 
the bishop also will go to Rome with the committee. 

3. It is necessary to find out from the bishop, has he any- 
kind of intention or method, to get out of this situation and to 
cooperate with us.? 

4. It is necessary to ask the bishop to take off the Church 
censure off the clergy, who took part in the struggle, :... may. our 
Church suffer not the loss of souls on account the unpeaceful si- 
tuation. There are a few priests who are under a strict Church - 
censure . 

The elected committse at the Scranton, Pa. , meeting is gone to 
see Bishop Basil Takacs. 

This committee after their return from Bishop Basil Takacs - 
trusted George Puhak to give the report of their visit with the 
bishop. " I George Puhak saw a "Post Script", which the bishop 
has shown me. According the content of this "post script", I only 
cansay , that in the letter there is something incurageing for us . 

The members are requesting a clear clarification from George 

GEORGE PUHAK: I promised, that all that I saw, I will keep it 
a secret, therefore I cannot reveal it. 

ALBERT SMOR: I protest against such a secret, because without 
a clarification this session cannot dwell on the matter. No one 
of the committee, who visited the bishop, had the right to promise 


a secret, all were well aware, that they are to report all said, 
and seen. If the bishop requested such a secret from anyone of 
the committee, he was to tell him, that such a secret is contra- 
ry to the thoughts and spirit of the Scran ton, Pa. , session of the 
committee. I cannot accept George Puhaks report, because it is - 
not clear, it does not agree with the resolutions and character 
of the Session. 

GEORGE PUHAK: I cannot give a more clarified report. I am - 
under the obligation to keep the secret. 

The debate continued, during the debate it was stated that: 

1. The bishop is not opposing the journey of the committee 
to Rome, he rather consideres it a worthy cause. 

2. But, he the bishop does not wish to go with the commit- 
tee to Rome, he feels that would belittle his episcopal dignity. 
The reason for this is , that the Sojedinenije is presenting it- 
self as a radical in the struggle. 

3. The bishop will give a recommendation to the committee 
in case it will make a change concerning the Editor, and if the 
K.O.V.O. will stop to function, if the character of persons and 
officers will change. 

4. The bishop said that the Sojedinenije is an independent 
organization which without him, if she pleases may make and con- 
tinue with her moves. 

5. The bishop will request from the Apostolic Delegate by 
September 15, 1934 a recommendation letter for the committee to 
be sent to Rome. About the result of his interveening at the A- 
postolic Delegate, he will notify the Sojedinenije Officers. 

The Session closed 8.00 P.M. 

The following Session commenced September 6, 1924- 10.00 A.M. 
with a prayer. 

After becoming aware of contents of the meeting with the bi- 
shop, it was decided, that the results are not satisfying. 

Nothing is new, all remains as it was before the visit to the 
bishop. A hope to form a general platform and to cooperate with 
the bishop, to have celibacy revoked and to have peace was un- 

After a lenghtly debate, it was concluded, that the visit to 
the bishop testify that the Sojedinenije has a grave problem. It 
seems that in the Bishops Chancery Office the spirit of revenge 
exists, which is obstructing our action of interest of peace and 
understanding . 

Under such circumstances, by all means it is necessary for 
the Sojedinenije to present facts of justification of the present 
and future action before the forum in concern. Beacause it seems, 
that the Sojedinenije and her official representatives are mis- 
represented, who without any reason are revolutionary radicals - 
enemies of the Church and peace. It is necessary to present ob- 
jective facts. The reason for the standpoint of the Sojedinenije 
is not only concerned with celibacy, but also with other matters, 
because the Sojedinenije character is a religious one, it had to 
suffer harm, loss on account of unwise, untactful presentation - 
of leadership in the Church matters. 

In fact the Sojedinenije officers always tried to conduct - 
matters in agreement with the Church character, if abbarations 


happened, the reason was that the sound voice of the Sojedinenije 
was not considered as a serious matter by the Church authority. 

It was decided to compile a Memorandum to enlighten the stand- 
point of the Sojedinenije on fundamental facts. The aim of the - 
Memorandum is that the officers receive a clear picture of the 
existing situation in the Eparchy. Furthermore, if all the reques- 
ts would be in vain, to build a trustworthy peaceful cooperation 
with the bishop, without a revenge, then the officers must come 
forward with moral and financial strenght of the organization ,to 
prove the legality and truthfulness the foundation and leadership 
of our organization and conduct of its officers. 

To compile such a Memorandum the following were selected Dr. 
George Varga, Michael Yuhasz,Sr., John Popp, Michael Laputka Geor- 
ge Puhak, Peter Zeedick,M.D. , Fr. Michael Staurovsky and Fr. De- 
siderius Simkow. 

MICHAEL LAPUTKA and Dr. GEORGE VARGA, recommended to send a 
Memorandum to the Apostolic Delegate. 

PETER IV. ZEEDICK, M.D.,:I recommend that this Memorandum be 
sent to all the Latin rite bishops in the United States. 

GEORGE PUHAK: It suffices to send the Memorandum only to the 
Apostolic Delegate. 

PETER IV. ZEEDICK, M.D. , : The Memorandum could be written in 
detail and objectively. 

GEORGE PUHAK: In certain cases the celibacy did not play any 
role, but all the facts are to be grouped according their CHA- 
RACTER and presented separately, to show clerly the harm done by __ 
the administration of Bishop Basil Takacs presenting them to the 
concerned forums. It is especially necessary to present the care- 
lessness, neglect of the present Church administration. 

FR. STEPHEN VARZALY : I recommend, that the Memorandum be sent 
to all the Roman Catholic Bishops, because they are informed a- 
bout our affairs. 

GEORGE PUHAK: The clergy started the struggle, therefore it 
is their matter to finish it. 

FR. DESIDERIUS SIMKOW: I oppose such a statement and would - 
like to have information about the money was to be given to 
committee of the K.O.V.O. 

MICHAEL LAPUTKA: I will explain the matter 

GEORGE PUHAK: The laymen should not mix into such matters, but 
the clergy, also the young clergy who came after the war from the 
Old-country are destroying the Church. Concerning the activities 
of the Chicago, 111. territory the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin peopl- 
es conduct, in certain parishes their situation is sad they suf- 
fer a lot. I as a loyal son of the Catholic Church condemn the me- 
thod of the movement. I still recommend, that no matter how much 
they suffer in the Chicago, 111. territory, but they are still to 
obey, even that the Church authorities and clergy were unjust to 

Many protests were sounded against George Puhaks opinions- . 

FR. MICHAEL STAUROVSKY: I protest against the matter said by 
George Puhak, it is an offense against the clergy. 

JOHN POPP: Let us peacefully weigh the matter. We should not 
blame the bishop. I disagree with George Puhak. With a harsh me- 
thod, we will not gain our goal. With strief , discord we will not 
gain, If we want peace let us act peacefully. We are Christians , 
let us not accuse each other. Let us listen to the requests of - 


the bishop. If the bishop will not keep his promise, the Bridge- 
port Conn, parish will know what to do. 

FR. Desiderius SIMXOW: i second the motion of Dr. Peter Zee- 
dick and Michael Laputka. 

BASIL SLIVKA: The forceful introduction of celibacy was the 
cause of the struggle, therefore it is necessary to stress in the 
Memorandum the damage and the consequences which were caused by 
celibacy . 

MICHAEL LAPUTKA: What happened in Freeland, Pa. .. 

GEORGE PUHAK: The bishop in "brevi manu" without any process 
ordered the exclusion of 300 members of the Freeland, Pa., parish, 
when the matter was in Court for a decision. 

MICHAEL YUHASZ,SR. : I request that John Masich read the report 
compiled by George Puhak. The report stresses the ill managed un- 
tactful moves of the Church authority in our Eparchy, i.e. the re- 
port contains accusations against the administration of Bishop 
Basil Takacs. 

FR. DESIDERIUS SIMKOV: I make a motion to make corrections in 
the report. 

FR. CONSTANTINE AUROROFF: I do not deem it necessary to make 
corrections in the report, let it stand as it is. I recommend a 
three member committee to go to Rome. 

PETER ZEEDICK,M.D. : The Apostolic Delegate knows more about 
us than we think. It is necessary for us to keep in mind that we 
are restless and dissatisfied with everything and are blackened 
before the Apostolic Delegate. Against the black report we are to 
give a contrary report, a true, objective report in the interest 
of the truth. 

JOHN POPP: If celibacy will not be recalled, what then ? 

DR. GEORGE VARGA: This question was actual, when the struggle 
began, but now we may take the question apart on its merits. 

The proposal was unanimously accepted. 

MICHAEL YUHASZ,SR. : At present it is very important for us to 
establish more branches. 

The proposal was accepted. 

DR. GEORGE VARGA: I propose that our struggle be written in' 
the English language also. Especially what was decided at the Con- 
vention and the articles published by the K.O.V.O. in the A.R.Vi- 
estnik. This was decided at the Convention, because the majority 
of the Sokols prefer to read about it in English. 

PETER ZEEDICK,M.D. , Was asked to give the committee permissi- 
on to use his library, concerning matters about the struggle, re- 
ply: I will comply with the request of the writers who are doing 
research work. 

GREGORY ZSATKOVICS: I propose that the treasurer be bonded $ 

The proposal was accepted. 

Session ended at 10.00 A.M. 

DR. Albert Smor, Rec. Sec. 




George Perhach, M. A. , "Married 
Priests in the Catholic Church 
1933. pp. 32-39. 

In 1933, the Carpatho - Rusins, laity and clergy, held a Con- 
gress in Detroit, Michigan. The purpose of the meeting was to u- 
nite firmly and to offset any move which would tend to Latinize 
these people or to forbid future married Catholic Uniate priests 
to function in America. Both priests and laity supported this Con- 
gress, and exhibited a determination to uphold their rite and pri- 

Again in 1933, the same people held a Congress in Pitsburgh, 
Pa. The following extracts taken from the A.R. Vies talk of Octob- 
er 5, 1933 gives detail account and purpose of this Congress: 



Stephen Sterenchak, Chairman August 14,1933. 

715 Park Building 
Pittsburgh, Pa. U.S.A. 


Your Holiness: 

On July 26,27,28, 1933, was held in Pittsburgh, Pa. , United - 
States of America, the Religious Congress of the American Greek 
Catholics of the Pittsburgh, Eparchy. Representing the parishes - 
and the people, were present 311 delegates, 45 priests and 60 can- 

This Congress was the culmination of the three year old batt- 
le for the preservation of our rights and privileges, a battle - 
which is fast destroying the religious and moral life of - a half 
million Carpatho- Rus in Greek Rite Catholics in America, and which' 
is detrimental to the Catholic Church in general by focusing 
attention of all non-catholics to our sorrowful plight and to the 
unmerciful and unjust administration of the Carpatho-Rusin Greek- 
Rite Catholic Church in America united with Rome. 

The purpose of calling this Congress was to put into concrete 
form the demands of the American Greek Rite Catholics of the Greek 
Rite Catholic Eparchy of Pittsburgh, Pa., to restore order and to 
make secure its future welfare. 

This Congress decided that the undersigned, as a committee se- 
lected for that purpose, send to the Roman See and to the Apostol- 
ic Delegate at Washington, D.C., a copy of the enclosed resolu- 
tions of the said Religious National Congress. 

For that reason, we as the committee as above seth forth, trans- 
mit and herewith enclose the resolutions as adopted by the religi- 
ous National Congress of the Carpatho Rusin Greek Rite Catholics 
in America united with Rome. 


Signed this 14th day of August 1933, by the Executive Commit- 
tee of the Religious National Congress of America 

Stephen Sterenchak 
Rev. Peter Molchany 
John Furda 

Most humbly yours 

Andrew Hleba 
Peter Korpos 
John Lois 

RESOLUTIONS: See page 216 
Page 38. 

Rev. Stephen Varzaly 
Dr. George Varga 
George Jugan 

"It is true, that many priests backed out and did not strongly 
support the Congress and its resolutions. This n doubt, is due to 
fear of being suspended, if they side with the people in opposi- 
tion to their bishop. Some staunch and curages priests took a bold 
stand in supporting the Congress, few of these were suspended . THe 
people scorn and disregard such suspension, they consider these 
priests true protectors of the Eastern Rite and customs, and they 
serve their people as above. It is believed that nearly all ' the 
priests are secretely in sympathy with the Congress. 

Does it not seem that this fight is justifiable since these - 
people are merely asking that they be allowed to continue to prac- 
tice their rite and privileges as they have been doing since they 
came to America.? 

The K.O.V.O. (Komitet Oboroni Vostocnoho Obrjada= K.O.V.O.) - 
was organized in 1933. The best minds of the Carpatho-Rusins are 
supporters of this assembly which is striving to enlighten the 
people concerning their rite and ideals, and which is laboring - 
zealously to establish one solid foundation the rite, privileges 
and constitutions of these people. 

Among the conspicuous defenders of the married Carpatho Rusin 
Greek Rite Catholic priests, the holy Eastern Rite, and customs - 
of these people are: Rev. Stephen Varzaly, Orestes Chornock , Peter 1 
Molchany , Michael Staurovsky; Dr. Albert Czmor, Dr Peter Zeedik, 
Michael Yuhasz, Sr. and Dr. George Varga. 

page 40. 

"Since neither the Carpatho-Rusins nor the Galicians have the- 
ological seminaries of their own, boys who planned a priestly ca- 
reer frequented St. Mary's (Seminary, Baltimore ,Md.) or St. Bo- 
naventure's (Allegheny, N.Y.) Roman Catholic seminaries in Ame- 
rica. Later these seminaries discontinued to educate them, they - 
went to Eastern seminaries in Czechoslovakia, Podkarpatska Rus,Ga- 
licia or to Rome . 

( George Perhach,M.A. studied in Baltimore, Md and Uzhorod Podkar- 
patska Rus . seminaries ) . 



Circular Letter September 1934. 



I am replying to your "Open Letter" A.R.Viestnik NO 28,1934). 

1. In the struggle against the forceful introduction of ce- 
libacy in the Eastern Church and Latinization of this Church. One 
clergy temselves cannot make a sudden success. Not because - the 
truth is not on their side, but because a few "JANICARIS" who sor- 
round the. authority who is under their influence, and the authori- 
ty is forbidding the clergy to struggle. The consequence is that 
many are ready to obey the unjust order, which is contrary to 
truth and justice. 

2. It is necessary by all means, that each member of the re- 
ligious organization take part in the on going struggle, and con- 
tinue it. 

3. Hie Board of Trustees of the Sojedinenije and the ma jori- 
ty of its members can free the clergy ;from taking prxt in the sad 
struggle and from the responsibility of unsucces not taking part 
in it, even if two thirds of the clergy would take part in it. 

4. In usual circumstances I would agree, that the voice of 
the majority of the clergy be a deciding matter. But, when the au- 
thority forbids the clergy to express their opinion. Many will re- 
main silent, whereas they should speak up. Therefore I cannot ag- 
ree with this, because the truth and justice does not depend ion 
the number of votes. Ego non contradicto, I do not contradict. 


The enemies accuse us of the following in our struggle: 

1. There is no Union contract. They are trying to prove, that 
we do not have legal ground, to uphold the rights of the law, con- 
cerning the marriage of seminarians who had finished their studies. 

This attack was refuted clearly many times on the pages of the 

2. The people do not care about this law governing their 
clergy. By taking part in the struggle this attack is refuted, the 
steadfastness in the struggle to the end refutes it. 

3. The celibacy concerns only the clergy, therefore the peo- 
ple have no right to mix into this matter. 

This is a suprising logic of our enemies. The Catholic Church 
calls all its members , faithful, to the so called "CATHOLIC ACTION 
and here the Greek Rite Catholics are forbidden to do so. 

Organized Catholic Action is now operative in every country . . . 
At time such action has shown itself as a veritable crusade (even 
then it is against the Easterners) wherein numberless Christians 
gave themselves and all they had for its holy cause. And we pray 
that again Catholic Action will know such zeal, such sacrifices , 
such inspiration. However manifold its plans far reaching its out- 
look and varied its program, Catholic Action has always one aim - 
to bring the truth of the Catholic Faith in practical service and 
practical living unto our fellow men; to promote charity and jus-' 
tice; to protect the weak; to assist the poor and lift them from 
their po powerty; to educate youth, to foster the sanctity of mar- 
riage; to strenghten family and social life. This was said by the 
Apostolic Delegate June 18, 1934 in Cleveland, Ohio at the Cathol- 
ic Hospitals Convention. 

The newest in the Catholic Church is the "LEAGUE OF DECENCY " 
organizing all the faithful , inviting Protestants and 


Jews to colaborate, accepting their co-work. If this is permitted 
and beneficial, then the Eastern Church is also free to call its 
faithful to defend the centuries old law. 

If anyone , certainly Bishop Basil Takacs cannot forget, that 
"ours" and his episcopacy was accomplished with the colaboration 
of the Sojedinenije. If anyone certainly Bishop Basil Takacs - 
cannot deny, that he was always seeking (even now) is seeking - 
and using the colaboration of the Sojedinenije, and even now he 
is useing the sinful colaboration of the Sobranije. 

The Church Authority forbids ( on account of a formality) a 
reply to the petition of Michael Yuhasz,Sr., stating, that the 
clergy August 20, 1933 in the "DECLARATION" expressed its stand 
in matter of celibacy, which is the same at present. 

With such a method he wishes to out fox the laity. 

True, the clergy in the mentioned "DECLARATION" condemned the 
K,0,V.O. and not the proper method of the struggle and the deci- 
sions of the Congress, it has done that mostly, because Bishop Ba- 
sil Takacs "PROMISED", that he will go to Rome to interveen in - 
matter of revoking celibacy. It is sad, Bishop Basil Takacs, could 
of, but did not keep his promise, therefore the "DECLARATIN" of 
the clergy lost its weight and obligation. 

The clergy standing is, that all the clergy, even Theo- 
phile Zsatkovics, Julius D. Grigassy, D.D., Valentine Gorzo, Alex- 
ander Papp, Valentine Balogh etc. , September 1, 1931 personally 
signed and sent to Rome, i.e., that they oppose the introduction 
of celibacy in the Eastern Church. 

To conquer this just stand, every priest and faithful is en- 
powered and obligated to cooperate in this matter, if he does not 
wish to be a traitor of the Church Laws. With this the Board of 
Trustees of the Sojedinenije are entrusted with 

Signed ; Greek Rite Catholic Priest. 
( no name, not to suffer unjust consequence) . 


Peter Iv. Zeedick, M.D. and Albert M. 
Smor. Homestead, Pa. 1934. Pamphlet. 

F O R W O R D 

In 1930 the struggle against the forceful introduction of ce- 
libacy in the Greek Rite Catholic Church in the United States of 
America began. 

In this struggle the Fraternal Organization " "SOJEDINENIJE" 
of Rusins of the United States of America, moved forward against 
the introduction of celibacy, because the members of this organi- 
zation saw this as a first move, to continue the Latinization of 
our Church and the tendency to change the Eastern Rite. The majo- 
rity of the people and the clergy agreed with the SOJEDINENIJE. 

On the other side a small organization "Sobranije" in its or" 
gan approved Bishop Basil Takacs' s politics, which according the 
Roman circles was ordered under the presusure of some Roman Catho- 


lie bishops or" the United States of America. It was decided to 
introduce celibacy into the Greek Rite Catholic Eparchy entrustc . 
edto him, even though it was opposing the feeling of the people 
and the traditions of the Greek Rite Catholic Church and its pri- 
vileges, which were assured with by Papal Bullas for the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church of the Eastern Rite. 

During this struggle in the official newspaper "Sobranije " 
articles often appeared agaonst the establishment of the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church united with the Roman See. It is a well 
known matter, that the Greek Rite Catholic Church of Rusins unit- 
ed with the Roman See in a Union signed in Ungvar 1646 . In which 
Union, which has a two sided obligatory character and three con- 
ditions. In the official newspaper "Sobranije" appeared a denial 

about the existance of the Ungvar Union 1646. especially concer- 
ning the two sided obligatory character with its conditions and 
a contract. Therefore this Union cannot be changed onesidedly,by 
one party. 

Such a denial is not only dangerous to the life of the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church, but also a rude infringement, violation 
of historical facts of reality. 

To refute the above statement the undersigned wrote several 
articles in reply. Those articles were continually in the A. R. 
Viestnik, with the permission of the Editor in Chief Fr. Steph- 
en Varzaly. The Literary Society of the Sojedinenije Greek Cathor 
lie Brotherhood in the United States of America, it was decided 
to publish these articles in a booklet form, later in 1934. On 
the foundation of this decision, the information was published - 
in a booklet form. 

With the expression of our sincere thanks to the Sojedinenije 
and the Literary Committee for -their kindness and generousity 
through which it was possible to publish our humble composition 
in a booklet form at the same time we are repeating that hope, 
that those, who are taking upon themselves the trouble to publish 
this book, will become strenghtened and better members of our en- 
deared Greek Rite Catholic Eastern Rite Rusin Church. 


In the past articles were published which show, that some peo- 
ple doubt the existance of the UNION OF UNGVAR (1646) a Union sign- 
ed under three conditions, by the Greek Rite clergy t at that time : 
non-catholic) and the Roman See. Such a standpoint is very danger- 
ous, because we are aware, that certain persons want to destroy - 
totally the historical foundation of the Greek . Rite Catholic 
Church of the Eastern Rite. With such an extreme doubt and refuta- 
tion, they are provoking automatically such a question: " On what 
foundation are we united with the Roman See. If the Union of Ung- 
var is not recognized ? Then on what kind a foundation does the 

Is it possible to speak generally about the Greek Rite Cathol- 
ic Church of the Eastern Rite as we know it to the present. By 
such an extreme denial , is it possible to f orsee such a termina- 
tion, conclusion, which many will have, because, there is no Greek 
Rite Catholic Church, because without a Union it cannot exist, then 
it is necessary to speak about two Churches, i.e. about the not 


united and the Latin Rite Church, the Roman Catholic Church. 

We are well aware of the spiritual disposition of our people 
therefore we are obligated to declare , that such an alternative 
could be very dangerous for the actual Union. 

Such an extreme does not recognize the standpoint of the who- 
le history and selfishly prepares the way for massive withdraw- 
als, because by such an extreme unexampled denial of historical 
truth it is a very hard matter to controll the feeling and phsy- 
chologically it is impossible to expect, anything else than that 
the people will reply with the same extreme method to the provo- 
cation. We also must state that such tricks are overs teping the 
boundries, which can give a foundation, reason for serious and 
dangerous struggle, because here we are speaking of: If the UNION 

i.e. if the Union with the Roman See does not exist. In such a 
situation it is our obligation to enlighten in detail the hind- 
rance employed in the exercise of all laws, privileges assured - 
to them in the UNION OF UNGVAR 1646. 

For an example: this is acknowledged in the mentioned deci- 
sion of Judge J. Moore, on the foundation of the testimony of Fr. 
Julius D. Grigassy and Dr. Peter Iv. Zeedick, the Hungarian Go- 
vernment Authority respectively the Habsburg Dynasty, selfishly , 
took away from the Greek Rite Catholic clergy the right to select 
a bishop. We are well aware that the first Bishop of Munkacs of 
the Munkacs Greek Rite Catholic Eparchy was elected by the clergy 
being approved by the Roman See. But, under the pressure of civil 
authority during the dispaired struggle for the life of the Greek 
Rite Catholic clergy, it could not totally save, but were forced 
to suffer such a treatment of the Hungarian Sovereigns authority. 
The fact is, that the Greek Rite Catholic clergy never expressed 
or publicly gave up such such a right which was onesidedly taken, 
away from them. That this could of happened, we can explain it - 
not only with the sad conditions, but also with that, that the - 
Hungarian Kings were named Apostolic Kings and as such they had a 
preference right privilege: Such a right as to appoint a bishop. 
Naturally the matter is, that the Roman Catholic Hungarian bishop- 
s supported such an approach upon the rights of the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic clergy, to be certain that the Greek Rite Catholic clergy 
did not have more rights than the Roman Catholics. The example - 
draws says the Latin proverb, so they feared that if the Latin Ri- 
te clergy would be aware, that the Greek Rite Catholic clergy e- 
lect a bishop for themselves , then they too would request such a 
law. On the other hand the Hungarian Kings authority would not be 
happy with such a "DEMOCRACY" that the clergy elect their bishop, 
fearing that the clergy could elect for themselves an independent 
spirited bishop, and it was necessary that the bishop be obedient 
in all to the Government. If we look over the Church history, then 
we will note, since the Apostolic Kings began to appoint the 
Greek Rite Catholic bishops, they were not firm steadfast fight- 
ers for the Greek Rite Catholic Church as were those chosen by 
the clergy. 

Bishops appointed by the Government, respectively by the 
King began to show themselves thankful to the Government and King . 
Many suffered such aproach, whereas the bishop elected by the 
clergy would not permit such a move. It is also a fact, that even 
some bishops appointed by the Government, King, not by the clergy 


were causious in defending the most important rights and privileg- 
es of the Eastern Greek Rite Catholic Church, if not for any oth- 
er reason, then out of oportunism. But the end of such a situation 
could be forseen. 

The Government, day by day became more firm in its intrussions. 
This was done more often in the XXth century (especially before - 
the First World War, the bishops only with great efferts save the 
Church language (Oldslovanic) . If not the First World War, then the 
Greek Rite Catholic Church would of been subjected to the will of 
the Hungarian Government. Because the clergy and the people ex- 
pressed their determined opposition and the bishops acknowledged 
that with force no reforms could be introduced, it is not an expe- 
dient matter. The bishops seeing the opposition refused the re - 
quest of the Hungarian Government and the violation of the Church 
for time was saved, in the Old- country . 

That the Greek Rite Catholic Church could have lived through 
such difficulties and come out victorious from such a long strug- 
gle, not being destroyed is miraculous. The main reason for this 
was, that the Old-country clergy and bishops always stood on the 
foundation of the Ungvar Union. 

In schools they taught, that the origin of the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic Church of the Rusins had its root in the Ungvar Union and 
that this Union was concluded under three conditions. If the Old- 
country clergy, bishops and the intelligentsia would not acknow- 
ledge, that such a Union exists, then the work of the enemies of 
the Greek Rite Catholic Church would of been a very easy task, to 
say and to prove that something as the Ungvar Union never been, 
no one, no where, nor ever thought abot it. 

Even the Latin Rite Church experts, historians and professors 
did not deny, nor try to deny, that the Ungvar Union did not ex- 
ist under the three conditions. What is more, they were trying - 
with their work to throw more light on the Ungvar Union. They ne- 
ver said nor wrote, that the Ungvar Union was only a onesided de- 
claration of loyalty and subjegation which obligate only the - 
Greek Rite Catholics united with Rome. That the Roman See has a 
fullfreedom to act as it pleases , not considering the three condi- 
tions . 

We sadly must admit, that until the opposing action of the - 
Roman Catholics made such a bold attack , they did not doubt the 
existance of the Union, and did not care to limit the two fold ob- 
ligations strenght to only one party the Greek Rite Catholics . 
Then, among us such a person was found, who for the first - time 
wrote that the existance of the Ungvar Union is a doubtful matter 
and that according the character the Union could be only a onesid- 
ed declaration, petition to the Roman See, because the Roman See 
or the Pope of Rome never signed such a document of the Ungvar U- 
nion. This person is Hodinka Antal. He with his statement, still - 
did not call out a struggle against himself, because in the Old- 
country utilized such a falsehood. In the Old-country it was 
known that, that Peter Iv. Zeedick,M.D. , stated at the Pittsburgh, 
Pa., Court, that Hodinka Antal wrote his composition, not without 
the influence of the Hungarian Roman Catholic Church circles . We 
also acknowledge , that he was collecting valuable material con- 
cerning the history of Munkacs Eparchy. Hodinka Antal as a member 
of the Hungarian Academy of Science, had to show somekind of lo- 


yalty. Here in the United States of America an impartial Judge 
J. Moore, did not take in consideration such a statement of Hodin- 
ka Antal, instead, he took the attention of those historians who 
were not blindened by self interests . 

We repeat, that people in the Old-country for many years we- 
re aware of the statement of Hodinka Antal. Still no one ever - 
thought, to forge an armour against the Eastern Rite, the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church. We all must acknowledge that one persons o- 
pinion, Hodika Antals opinion cannot destroy the facts, which we- 
re established in a long line of kncwn historians. But, here in 
the United States of America, some Church persons disperingly wish 
to benefit by the unfounded statement of Hodinka Antal against the 
rights and privileges of the Eastern Greek Rite Catholic Church 

and prove, that the Union of Ungvar was a onesided declaration 
or petition , which does not obligate the Roman See. Because as 
the "Prosvita" writes, there is no document of the Ungvar Union - 
and this document cannot be found on the foundation of the natur- 
al law, because when the "Prodigal Son" returns to his father , — 
this is not a pact, no contract Union. The returning party the " 
Prodigal Son", may humbly ask, from the father of Christ Church, 
from the Pope of Rome "Kindness, but cannot demand, a contract." 

We at present do not wish to present the bitterness of our 
hearts for belittleing the honor, respect of our ancestors, whom 
the annonymous writer of the "Prosvita" name "PRODIGAL SONS", as 
no one has ever named them. 

But we in this expression see a mark of opposing feeling to 
our past and thinking that people filled with such a feeling are 
hard to convince of our truth. From the above quoated words of 
the "Prosvita" it is clear to us, that here is a great divergen- 
ce of a very, very important matter, because we are not speaking 
about what the Union contains in itself, and we do not have the 
right to lead our self defending struggle on the foundation of 
the Ungvar Union., but also, that there is no Union, but there 
is only a petition, therefore we cannot speak about the rights of 
the Greek Rite Catholic Church, because our ancestors were "PRODI- 
GAL SONS", returning to their father and as such, they could only 
humbly beg kindness. According this statement of the "Prosvita" - 
we are to discontinue the struggle, for the sake of the disputab- 
le authority of Hodinka Antal, to lay aside all other historians, 
the 300 year old past, all the facts and acknowledge that we can- 
not speak about rights and as descendants of "PRODI CAL SONS" we 
must only dream, presume about kindness. 

That they may not quote us incorrectly by this point, we must 
repeat, that we do not have no doubt concerning the highest father- 
ly authority of the Pope of Rome above the Church. Fr. Julius D. 
Grigassy ( whom the Prosvita accepts as an authority) in the 
Court has acknowledged, that even the Pope has the power to chan- 
ge all laws except the Divine Law. Under this condition ( speaking 
about the condition of the Ungvar Union) cannot be used, that this 
branch of his Church give away its Greek Rite and accept the Latin 

It is logical, that not all depends on the grace favor of the 
Holy Father of Rome. If we permit this, then of his grace it de- 
pends to accept or not our ancestors" THE PRODIGAL SONS" , after the- 


ir acception. To respect the promised condition, by which they we- 
re accepted, is not a matter of grace, but of righteousness, such 
a righteousness we can expect, ask and request, demand. We were 
witnesses of such an expression from the mouth of a bishop , who 
told us:" If you are convinced in your truth, you have the right 
to struggle honestly, what is more, you are obliged to struggle 
for your rights and for this no one cannot even the Holy Father 
of Rome will not condemn you " . 


First of all we are to take a closer look at the value of the 
greatest "authority" of the "Prosvita" i.e. Hodinka Antal. It ap- 
pears to us as a matter for us to decide, because even the Pitts- 
burgh, Pa., Court refused to acknowledge Hodinka Antal as an autho- 
rity concerning the UNGVAR UNION. But, when the "Prosvita" offers 
a whole page to quote Hodinka Antal, then we must, atleast short- 
ly occupy ourselves with this matter. 

It seems to us that the obscurity - darkness of Hodinka Antal 
is a contagious for the writer of the "Prosvita" (No 21,1934, be- 
cause in the mentioned article it is written our truth. Editors of 
the A.R.Viestnik and you Fr. Michael Staurovsky, most probably are 

aware , as we are , that in Ungvar there . was a Union . You 

are also aware of this as we are, that such UNION .... happened 
fcr an example in 1652. When the document of three conditions was 
written. This shows that the writer of the "Prosvita "acknow ledges 
with us, that in UNGVAR truely was a UNION under three conditions. 
But, in the same paragraph, after this announcement, the writer of 
the "Prosvita" writes:" We not only disbelieved this, because the- 
re is no such document, it cannot be ...." When we read and repeat- 
edly read these words of the "Prosvita", we noticed, that in one 
line the "Prosvita" acknowledges, that there was a UNION under 3. 
conditions, and repeatedly stating, that he knows about this UNION, 
and about the document of the three conditions , and in another li- 
ne he writes:" We do not believe in it, because there is no docu- 
ment. Consequently we must doubt the seriousness and responsibi- 
lity of the "Prosvita" writer. We feel sorry for him, that he un- 
der the cape of the Church Authority, can one be so illogical as 
to disturb the readers of little faith obscure - dark writing. ( 
How many Eparchys do have the document of canonization, the estab- 
lishment ?) 

The article was published in the Prosvita, titled:" ABOUT THE 
UNGVAR UNION DOCUMENT". The Union Document of Ungvar, which was 
written by Hodinka Antal an authority, who was not recognized by 
the Pittsburgh, Pa., Court. It was introduced by the Pittsburgh, Pa 
MENT". When the "Prosvita" writer gives under different titles the 
same matter, it shows, that the title was not written by Hodinka 
Antal, some one else wrote it, who in one part states that there 
is no document of the Union, but still speaks about such a docu- 
ment publicly and in Court. 

Let us take a look at, what Hodinka Antal is writing in the - 
extold quotation in the Prosvita. In the beginning of paragraph 2 
that April 24, 1646 the FIRST UNION TOOK PLACE and that "that dur- 
ing that event, occasion no letter was written. The pact was a 


VERBAL ONE. Please be patient. Paragraph 5. according Hodinka An- 
tal he writes: that in the year January 15, 1652 Bishop Parthenius 
called the clergy to a Synod and there the petition was composed 
to Pope Innocent, which was written in the Rusin language. r,: This ' 
letter or document was signed by six Archdeacons, discribing ' in 
it the UNION of the FIRST 63 PRIESTS. In the beginning of this - 
document there are names of those priests who latter signed the - 
UNION document. It is sad, that this document was lost. According 
this fact in 1652 there was a SECOND UNION of another group of - 
clergy who united with Rome. By such means these ptiests then on- 
ly added to the 1646 Union their names after ( whos number could 
been 400) centuries, in such a way they agreed with the CONFES- 
SION OF FAITH, which was in the year 1646, with the three said - 
conditions . 

It is perfectly clear, that even Hodinka Antal acknowledges - 
that, that there is a document about the UNION, and that such a 
document of the UNION was sighed not only by the Archdeans ,but al- 
so knew about these priests who after the declaration of the UNION 
signed the document.. WHEN DID THEY SIGN ? Those who were present 
at the conclusion of the UNGVAR UNION April 24,1646, later on all 
did not have a meeting, another Synod. Therefore it is logical, 
that they signed the Union document April 24, 1646 at that time.- 
That they did sign somekind of a document, it is clear by the word- 
s of Hodinka Antal. Because Hodinka did not find any trace of the 
written document, he concluded, that there is no such document ,- 
nor was there ever one. But, this matter cannot be finished so 
lightely because common sense oppose such a statement, that tho- 
se priests, who before the Eger Roman Catholic Bishop took an oath 
pledge of loyalty, or that Bishop George Jakusics did not make 
such a document of the announced Union. This was a very important 
event. That up to date no such document was found, that does not 
prove, that it was never composed, but, what is more the condi- 
tions were mentioned. Most probably the document contained favor- 
able rights for the Greek Rite Catholic clergy, which was put away 
by a concerned. group, not to be found to the present day. 

The final fact is , that even Hodinka Antal acknoledges , that 
the UNION was concluded in Ungvar, under three conditions and that 
such a written document exists with the names who signed the FIRST 

Hodinka Antal acknowledges, that in his work he had manny dif- 
ficulties, especially when doing reasearch in Rome for the document 
concerning the history of the Munkacs Eparchy. He acknowledges, that 
he collected documents in the Vatican archives ONLY FROM 1651 -1731. 
Even the highly honored person ( as Bishop Frakno) interveened,so 
that Hodinka Antal receive great freedom in the Vatican Archives, er- 
ven though that was promised to him. On the other side the Congre- 
gation of Faith ( .... especially secretary Ciasca) , permitted him 
to look over only the documents of 1651 to 1731. 

Such conditions present to us the matter, that the Vatican Ar- 
chives did not help Hodinka Antal . Under what kind of conditions 
did Hodinka Antal work in the mentioned archives , we do not know 
exactly. Hodinka Antal mentions and gives us a foundation to such 
a conclusion, that the secretary of the Congregation of Faith ,did 
not want Hodinka Antal to have full freedom. To this the secretary 
most probably must had his reason. What could been the reason ? 


We all can make our conclusion. Our conclusion is that in spite 
of Hodinka Antal's sacrifice and spirit in his work, he could not 
see all the documents. It is interesting to note that Hodinka An- 
tal saw only those documents which were given concerning the matt" 
ers of the Munkacs Eparchy from 1651- 1731. 

About the announcement of the Union some historians wrote 
that it happened in 1646. This was a critical time in the history 
of the Catholic Church in Hungary. There was a question: will 
Hungary be Catholic or Protestant. Most probably that was the rea- 
son that Bishop George Jakusics was happy when Peter Parthenius - 
Rostisinsky and Demetrius Kassovicius Kornicky asked him in 1645, 
that he take the matter of the Carpatho Rusin Orthodox into his 
hands. Bishop George Jakusics invited the Munkacs clergy to the 
Ungvar Fort April 24, 1646. At this Synod the Munkacs clergy we- 
re represented by 63 priests, who announced their inclination to 
accept a Union, and placed their Profession of Faith in the hands 
of Bishop George Jakusics. The minutes of this Synod were written. 
This is the opinion of known historians. Even that these minutes 
are not known nor published at the present day. But, we are a- 
ware, so is Hodinka Antal on the foundation of other historians, 
that the Union was not concluded without conditions . We know the 
most about this matter of the Union from the minutes of George 
Lippay, sent to Rome in 1654. This letter states that seven Arch- 
deacons signed January 15, 1652, Pope Innocent X. was notified - 
that the Union was completed. We have said previously, that accor- 
ding out opinion it is totally logical that in April 24, 1646 so- 
mekind of a document about the announcement of the Union and the 

Where could the document of the Ungvar Union be ? When the U- 
nion was concluded in 1646 in Ungvar before the Eger Bishop Geor- 
ge Jakusics, Eger was occupied by the Turks and the Bishop lived 
in Jasso. Hodinka Antal must been aware, as Michael Lucskay stat- 
ed, that the sister of Bishop George Jakusics, Anna Jakusics was 
the wife of Grof John Drugeth, the owner of the Ungvar Fort. Micha- 
el Lucskay expressed an opinion, that probably the first document 
concerning the Union was given to the Drugeth or Csaky, or Wander- 
not family. It is a suprise, something not understood, that Hodin- 
ka Antal did not search for this document in Nagy Szombat (Trnava) 
nor in Esztergom, and neither in the archives of the mentioned fam 
milies . 

IN 1648 Bishop Kisdy of Eger and Jaszberenyi Tamas,S.J. appro- 
ved the Union which was concluded in 1646 by Bishop George Jaku- 
sics in the presence of Parthenius and Kassovicius. This Union - 
was acknowledged in 1652 by Primate George Lippay. It is impossib- 
le that such an important event as this Union of 1646 was conclud- 
ed only orally. The circumstances dictate it and the good mind re- 
peats it, so did the known historians acknowledge it; that about 
the 1646 Union of Ungvar a document was written, but this document 
got lost and it is not found to this day. It also could of happen- 
ed that this original document was destroyed, because Bishop Geor- 
ge Jakusics, as did Primate George Lippaiy knew what happened to 
Peter Skarga,S.J. They did not want to repeat the same mistake, - 
which Peter Skarga,S.J., made. The second thought is that too much 
was promised to the Rusin priests, they were too big hearted, when 
they guarenteed all that, the Rusin priests asked for in the con- 


ditions of the Union. 

It is not hard to understand, that not one Roman Catholic Bi- 
shop nor Archbishop Primate George Lippay was pleased with these 
conditions, e.g. That the Greek Rite Catholic clergy will have a 
free right to choose elect their own bishop, who will be approved 
by the Pope of Rome. On account of this reason it is possible, 
that the Primate of that time did not care to present these condi- 
tions to Rome. If there is, no document in Rome and the Union of - 
1646, we can ascribe it to the fact, that while the Eger Bishop - 
and the Primate wanted that the Rusin clergy join the bosom of the 
Catholic Church, they thought about the future, and wanted to li- 
mit the rights and privileges of the Uniates , as much as possible. 
Primate George Lippay was urging the approval of Bishop Partheni- 
us , because many of these priests who in 1646 accepted the Union, 
as they became aware of the meddling of the Roman Catholic autho- 
rities they began to return to Orthodoxy. Primate George Lippay - 
was aware of all this. This is why they called the attention of 
the Roman See to it, that here is a question of Union with Rome - 
of the whole populus , therefore it deserves a full attention of 
the Apostolic See. Under the presure of such arguments, the suc- 
cessor of the late Pope Innocent X. Pope Alexander VII. gave the 
whole matter to the Primate George Lippay to decide . In all of 
this it is seen and known, that after the Primate George Lippay 
acted in this matter as a full powered delegate of the Pope and 
as such he ordained Parthenius a Bishop in 1656 as the one elect- 
ed by the clergy according the founding of the Ungvar Union. (even 
Hodinka Antal admits this) . The intervention before George Dru<- 
geth by Primate George Lippay March 3, 1655 to give freedom to - 
the Greek Rite Catholic clergy, which was promised in the third 
paragraph of conditions in the Union of 1646 , and this was se- 
cured by the Primate May 14, 1648. 

In such a light we see that all the conditions were introduc- 
ed into life. The first condition :" the inviolability of the Ea- 
stern Rite", there was no hindrance; the Divine services and cus- 
toms of the church remained the same,. 

The second condition was fulfilled when Primate George Lip- 
pay ordained as a Bishop-elected by the clergy. (Ordained as Or- 
thodox Bishop.). 

The third condition was put into force for the first time by 
George Drugeth and finally by King Leopold I . in 1692 . When we 
see a whole row of such facts, how can we be doubtful, that all 
this happened on the foundation of one exactely set contract ag- 
reement. We even are well aware of the fact that in 1652, Parthe- 
nius Gabriel Kassovicius and Bishop Kisdy lived. Can we believe, 
that these individuals permitted something erroneous be written 
in this document, which Hodinka Antal names, titles : "UNION DOCU- 
MENT" and what was written in 1652. Can we believe that three 
years latter that the Pozsony (Bratislava) Chapter would accept- 
ed it into their archieves, such a document which does not cor- 
respond with the truth ? Can we believe that a whole line of his- 
torians would quote and accept without criticism such an import- 
ant document ? When a letter is accepted as a document January 15 , 
1652, then it also accepted it documentarily , that the Union was 
concluded April 24,1646 in Ungvar under three conditions, and the 
three conditions were fulfilled earlier as we proved it above. 



The UNGVAR UNION was concluded according the foundation of - 
the Council of Florence, namely on the foundation of "Laetentur - 
Coeli" Bulla. The conditions of the Ungvar Union do not oppose 
those principles , presented and accepted at the Florence Council 
for the founding of Union. The establishing of the Union for - 
those non united with the Roman See according the Council are as 
the following 

1. Profession of Faith. 

2. The preservation of the different Rites. 

3. The discipline of the Latins, does not obligate the Eas- 
terners . 

On such a foundation was the Brest Union approved by the Bul- 
la of Pope Clement VIII, " Magnus Dominus". 

We all are aware that the Roman See cannot make concessions - 
in matters of Faith and morals to those, who wanted to unite with 
them -There fore all that is concerns Faith and morals must be ac- 
cepted and acknowledged unconditionally by those who wish to u- 
nite with the Roman See. In this relation of the Union with the 
Roman See, it is nothing else but a one sided declaration of the 
party, that wished to unite with the Roman See. 

But in other relations, i.e. in matters of Rite and Discipli- 
ne such a Union is not and must not be a onesided contract. If 
such a Union was only onesided in all relations; if the Roman See 
had full right concerning Rite and Discipline, as it has in mat- 
ters of faith and morals, then the Union would not be a UNION, it 
would be a subjugation to Latinization. When we speak about the - 
UNION, then we speak even about the conditions, which are in con- 
cern about the rite, discipline and customs or other special par- 
ticularities of the Church. This is followed after many Papal do- 
cuments, of which we will mention only the " Laetentur Coeli" and 
"Magnus Dominus" it is said expressively: ALL THAT THE EASTERN RI- 

Now when we are speaking about the contract, character of the 
Union, we must have in mind this contract cannot be a concern of 
faith and morals, but, exclusively concerns rite, discipline and 
other characteristic matters. 

To secure such matter, conditions are given, and conditions 
are given and accepted under such condition-. The uniting party 
solemnly accepts all that, the Catholic Church teaches in matters 
of faith and morals, also accepts the Roman Pope as the Head of 
the Church. On the other side the Roman See accepts and promises 
to respect the conditions concerning the rite Discipline and simu- 
lar matters in the benefit of the ones united. 

It is also said, that in the foundation of the "Laetentur Coe- 
li" Bulla given by Pope Eugene IV. I is said, that the Union of 
Brest, the Galician Rusin Orthodox is acknowledged in the " Mag- 
nus Dominus" Bulla. The two sided obligation, strenght of the U:- 
nion, cannot be lessened. Why ? Because it is not necessary to - 
sign such copies when the Bulla is onesided as the "Laetentur Coe- 
li" in which are elementary conditions given by the Pope and on 
the other part there is a declaration of loyalty and fidelity 


with the Roman See. A contract still a contract, even if not - 
written on one paper, but written on two separate papers and sign- 
ed by the contracting parties. Here we have on one side the "Lae- 
tentur Cceli" Bulla which speaks for the Pope, who says: That the 
Union is possible under such principles: Profession of Faith, sec- 
urity of different rites; and that the disciplinary laws of the - 
Latins do not obligate the Easterners. On the other page is the 
fact of the Ungvar Union which acknowledges : 

1. The Pope of Rome as the Head of the Church and • all the 
teaching concerning faith and morals. Indicating theAcknowledge - 
ment of the Uniting clergy who made the Profession of faith. 

2. The three conditions are not tied with the matters of 
faith and morals, but, secure the inviolability of the rite and 
discipline, as it was guarenteed in the "Laetentur Coeli" , also 
guarenting other advantages benefits. 

If we would place these documents together, it would become 
one document, one contract. These documents do not oppose each 
other they rather complete each other. They contain all the ele- 
ments within themselves of a two sided obligatory strenght. In 
one part the Pope of Rome is acknowledged as the Head "of the 
Church, and for the Easterners the teaching of faith and morals; 
on the other part the Roman See acknowledges and guarentees to 
fulfill the other conditions. 

In the Ungvar Union were three conditions which we mentioned 
before. These conditions were executed, accomplished in a short 
time right after the conclusion of the Union. It is a fact that 
the Brest Union was also simularly concluded with the Galician - 
Orthodox Rusins. It clearly shows that the Union realy had and 
have a two sided obligatory strenght. That the Pope of Rome did 
not sign the copy of the Union document, it is only a childish - 
subtility. With such a subtility we cannot be convinced nor does 
it present any seriousness , which requests the signature of the 
Pope of Rome on somekind a "official copy". 

Why didnt the opponents demand such a copy, but waited until 
now ? The struggle is on for the past five years. Why didnt Juli- 
us D. Grigassy protest against such a teaching in the Old-country 
that the Ungvar Union has a two sided obligatory strenght ? He 
was in the Old-country, when the struggle against the "Ea Semper" 
Bulla in the United States of America, he could of read in the " 
GOROG KATOLIKUS SZEMLE" of May 3, 1908 a written article by Ge'za 
Petrasovics, titled: "AZ EA SEMPER JOGI SZEMPONTBOL" (the juridi- 
cal view of the Ea Semper) . He must of read this article , because 
in the same number there is an article written by Julius D. Gri- 
gassy. What did Geza Petrasovics write ? How do we stand with Ro- 
me ? The Holy Union was concluded on the foundation of the Floren- 
tine Union. The contract of our Union contains in it a self a mu- 
tual and one sided never violated statement between the Greek Ri- 
te Uhro-Rusins and Pope Innocent X. , it pertains to a two sided 
contract, which can be changed only by mutual understanding of 
both sides. It is said clearly. Still, neither Julius D. Grigassy 
nor Bishop Basil Takacs did not deem it necessary in the Old-coun- 
try to step forward and oppose such a statement of Geza Petraso- 
vics, because they too accepted then the two sided Ungvar Union. 

Ge'za Petrasovics condemns the "Ea Semper" Bulla in his artic- 
le and states, that the Bulla is a violation of the Union. What 


did Ge'za Petrasovics recommend against such an intrusion upon 
the Greek Rite Catholics in the United States of America. It is 
very interesting to read 25 years later the recommendation - of • 
this Old-country priest, who wrote publicly in the official news- 
paper of the Munkacs Eparchy: "Our faithful living in the United 
States of America cannot do anything , but, refer to His Holiness 
about the two sided contract (Ungvar Union) and introduce a PAS- 
SIVE RESISTENCE. That, they can easily do, because they are the 
overlords of all the churches". 

In 1908 from the Old-country the Greek Rite Catholics were re- 
commending to the people in the United States of America to IN- 
"EA SEMPER" BULLA. This recommendation was given from the part - 
of the Church, on the pages of the OFFICIAL EPARCHIAL NEWSPAPER. 
Julius D. Grigassy whose article appears in the same issue also 
read the article. Neither did Bishop Basil Takacs did not pro- 
test even with one word against that article. 

And at present ? 

At present they are writing and speaking differently. At the 
present they are saying, that there is no Ungvar Union; accord- 
ing to them, it is only a one sided declaration, to oppose the 
Roman order which is violating the Eastern Rite and the Ungvar - 
Union, what is not permissble. About our Passive Resistence, we 
all are aware, that what kind an opinion do they have about it. 

"The EA SEMPER" Bulla was the first decided blow, stabb at 
the Eastern Rite in the United States of America. The voice 
brought up against this Bulla not only by the Greek Rite Cathol- 
ics here in the United States of America (the Podkarpatski Rusin- 
s and Galician Rusins) , but also in the Old-country the same was 
done. We already have quoted Geza Petrasovics 's article which 
appeared in the official newspaper of the Munkacs Eparchy, which 
plainly showed that in the Old-country, the Ungvar Union was al- 
ways considered as a two sided obligatory act among the Roman See 
and clergy, faithful, who under three conditions united with 
Rome. The mentioned authority bitterly qualifies the "Ea Sempe " 
Bulla as a violation of the rights - laws- privileges- traditions 
of the Eastern Rite of the Greek Rite Catholic faithful. Ge'za Pe- 
trasovics openly declared, that the Greek Rite Catholic faithful 
cannot do anything else against the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, only to 
step on the field of PASSIVE RESISTENCE 

Still Geza Petrasovics also says, that the Bulla does not con- 
cern the faithful, who are not citizens of the United States of 
America. If the Bulla concerns only those faithful, who became - 
citizens in the United States of America. In such a case he calls 
the "Ea semper" Bulla "AN ERRONEOUS DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENT" , because 
according Geza Petrasovics, they are already United States of Ame- 
rica citizens, if they lost the security of right of the Union 
This Bulla treats them as loosers of their rights, therefore on 
the other hand these Greek Rite Catholic faithful "ARE FREED FROM 
THE UNION CONTRACT OF THE UNION", their free will may express, the 
same against the Roman Curia, as the Curia expressed its will a- 
gainst them. A tabula rasa standing in front of both parties, up- 
on which board neither one can write his conditions, on the foun- 
dation the may agree, accept for themselves obligation mutually « 
or point of 1646 Uhro-Rusin Union or the Galician Union, or they 


may tie a totally new agreement. 

We are quoting these words especially, because, to present 
as relief to persuade the standpoint, which was always self un- 
derstood among the Greek Rite Catholic Carpatho-Rusins , namely 
that Greek Rite Catholicism cannot exist without a Union, neither 
can the Union exist without conditions. That such a concern was 
founded and exists among us. The reason for this is not the only 
one, but, for a greater part the unfortunate politics, which the 
Roman circles led from the very beginning, concerning our Greek 
Rite Catholic Church. Even Hodinka Antal admits that, that Rome 
acted very unpleasantly towards the Rusin people, who in Hungary 
joined the Union. He was suprised that the Carpatho Rusin people 
and clergy did not leave the idea of the Union with the Roman See . 
Because it was clee.rly evident, that the Carpatho Rusin people of 
Hungary did not receive the proper treatment from the part of the 
Roman See, the kind that was received by the Galician or Romanian 
Uniates. The Romanians united with Rome 60 years later than the 
Carpatho Rusins received the canonization of Munkacs Eparchy only 
in 1771. The history of the Romanian Episcopacy, from far was not 
as clear as the history of the Munkacs Episcopacy, Rome still did 
not request from them all kinds of proofs of their episcopacy , Ro- 
me did not say, that it is "ONLY NAMELY". Whereas, the Carpatho - 
Rusins had to struggle with the Protestant landlords, later On - 
with the Eger Bishops, the King, and only God knows with whom. Fi- 
nally they had to struggle with Rome with whom they united . Rome, 
forwardly at once refused to acknowledge the existance of the an- 
cient Munkacs Episcopacy. Rome did not favor the Carpatho- Rusins 
as it did the Romanians. We cannot explain why was it so, but the 
fact is , that not one group of people among the Uniates had to 
suffere from the part of the Roman circles, as exactly as the Car- 
patho Rusin people. All this is acknowledged by the historians. 

It is suprising, that these people, did not have confidence , 
but, cared to secure for themselves formally all that belonged 
to them. Uselessly we will speak to our people, or others, that- 
"ROME LOVES US", that Rome wants the best for us. The people are 
convinced otherwise and their conviction is not without a founda- 
tion . 

Since the Union exists, continually the work was led secretly 
or openly, directly or indirectly by Rome, against the rights, - 
laws, privileges and against the discipline, which the Union clear- 
ly guarenteed for the Greek Rite Catholic Church. This is not a 
simple announcement, this is proven with the history of the Mun- 
kacs Eparchy, it is also proven with the short history- of the 
Greek Rite Catholic Carpatho Rusins in the United States. 

No one can say, that the "EA SEMPER" Bulla is a proof of love 
of the Roman See towards the Greek Rite Catholic Church, or is the 
"CUM DATA FUERIT" is a special favor to the Greek Rite Catholic E- 
parchy in the United States of America. 

The "EA SEMPER" Bulla, so is the "CUM DATA FUERIT" is intend- 
ed to change, violate the Eastern Rite and to destroy the indivi- 
dual Greek Rite Catholic Church in the United States of America. . 
In all its Bullas - Decree the politics are renewed, as it was 
led from the very beginning of the Union, against the Greek Rite 
Catholics up to the nomination of Bishop Alexius Pocsi. This is 
not only our opinion. 


In 1907 Julius Hadzsega, S.T.D., from the University of Buda- 
pest professor of the Ungvar Greek Rite Catholic Seminary stated, 

that the official Rome is striving to destroy the Greek 

Rite Catholics in the United States of America (Gorog Katolikus 
Szemle No. 49 Vol. VIII) . He is quoting Eusibius Remond, who wro- 
te in his memorandum to Pope Clement XI., that: " Ex ilia fidei 
disciplinaque Orientalium Ecclesiarum inscitia duplici planemque 
contraria ratione peccatum est nee in ordine solum, sed Romae, sub 
oculis Summorum Pontificium" . ( The ignorance non acquaintance of 
the Greek Rite is a well known matter even in Rome, which is a 
known sin.) . 

Can we be suprised that the Roman Catholic Bishops in the Uni- 
ted States of America, know even less about us Greek Rite Cathol- 
ics . They do not know us , therefore they do not love us . This is 
plainly an unfortunate matter for us. If the reason of this unfor- 
the same for us, because, so or so, the existence of the Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Church is in danger. 

About this we were reminded in 1907 from the Old-country, on 
the pages of a serious Church newspaper, by persons who knew well, 
what were they writing. Julius D. Grigassy and Bishop Basil Ta- 
kacs most probably read the articles in the "GOROG KATOLIKUS SZEM- 
LE", and most likely they agreed with the opinions of such writ- 
ers as Augustin Volosin, Geza Petrasovics, Julius Hadzsega, etc - 
Who openly criticized the conduct of Rome, when the "EA SEMPER"- 
Bulla was published. On account of this in the Old-country no one 
was suspended, nor excommunicated, nor were they named false 
teachers propagating false teaching, against the Church teaching. 
Julius Hadzsega decidedly declared that the Corporation is not de- 
fending the rights, privileges, customs and the strict discipline 
of the Eastern Church, then it is not fulfilling its obligation - 
on which it was established. He also proclaimed that such Bulla - 
as the "EA SEMPER" will not help the Easterners to Union. 

In one article in the "GOR5G KATOLIKUS SZEMLE", written by a 
priest. We read the following announcement: He who acknowledges - 
the "EA SEMPER" Bulla as obligatory for him, he becomes a heretic 
or destructer of the contract". 

All this was written in the Old-country in the Munkacs Epar- 
chy newspaper for the people and the clergy to read. There is no 
trace that Julius D. Grigassy and (Bishop) Basil Takacs, were pro- 
testing, or expressing their contrary opinions, at that time. They 
agreed with all, what was written in the "g5rOG KATOLIKUS SZEMLE" 
about this matter. We cannot make any other conclusion, because - 
it is a well known fact., that Julius D. Grigassy and Basil Takacs 
were usual contributors, coworkers of different newspapers .If they 
had some kind of an opinion, they would of expressed it publicly. 
We cannot understand, why do they wish to present to us in the U- 
nited States of America all that, that comes from Rome as if it be 
a direct act of Heavenly Powers ? 

It will not be an uninteresting matter to mention an interest- 
ing fact, on the foundation of many times cited official newspaper 
of the Munkacs Eparchy the : "GOROG KATOLIKUS SZEMLE". This is neces- 
sary on account of that the necessity, that we present this, that 
the denial of the UNGVAR UNION (1646) from the part of the opposi- 
tion against our views, is not a very consciences matter. 


Many of them, we may say all of them, until the present times 
they were aware as we know it, that the Ungvar Union ( 1646), and 
other Unions were not uncondicionally concluded, but a two sided 
obligatory fact, which in common language is called a contract. 

We are in possession of certain histories, from the Old-count- 
ry covering the Greek Rite Catholic Eparchies. In these historic- 
al books it is mentioned that the Ungvar Union is described more 
or less in detail by presenting other Unions concerning this fact, 
that the writers of the Church History are not hiding the histori- 
cal facts about the concluding of the Unions, not the two sided - 
obligatory character. If we take into consideration, that* the 
Church Histories were written to be used in middle class schools, 
from which the future intelligentsia of the future Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic clergy would study, then we cannot doubt, that the writer* 
s of these Church Histories presented authentic and true facts .We 
cannot presuppose, that the writters of these Church Histories 
wished to fill the minds of the students with false statements 
and compositions. We cannot presuppose that the writers of these 
books of studies, approved by the Ministerium of Education and 
Church authorities, could be spreading false and unjust statement- 
s. Beside this, these historical books were usually subjected to 
sharp criticism, e.g., Church History, from the pen of Professor 
Geza Varga, who was an instructor of religion in the Ungvar Gymna- 
sium. From his book students studied. In this book it is written 
on page 98:" Even that Basil Tarasovics was sorry for his full 
action about the Union, it was impossible to choke the awakening 
request in souls . As his successor the clergy elected Peter Ros- 
tosinsky, whom Basil Tarasovics recommended on his dead-bed. This 
righteous man with Basil Kassovicius inspired, travelled through 
villages gathering souls for the Union. Being that Peter Rosto- 
sinsky met with great success in his travels, with monk Demetri*- 
us Kornicky. They went to Eger to talk over the Union. The conse- 
quence was that before Bishop George Jakusics of Eger, April 24, 
1646 in Ungvar in the Fort chapel, the Union was completed by the 
presence of 63 priests under the following conditions: 

1. The Greek Rite will remain inviolable. 

2. The clergy elect for themselves a bishop and the Pope to 
approve him. 

3. The Greek Rite clergy to receive all the privileges as 
the Latin clergy. 

This Union at that time accepted 400 priests and faithful - 
with only 200 priests in the Munkacs Manor. In Maramaros County 
they remained in Schism. Of these Rusins, many united with the 
Munkacs Lords Manors during that century . " 

This history was very fundamentally, praiseworthily and pri- 
cisely by Julius D. Grigassy on the pages of the "GOROG KATOLI- 
KUS SZEMLE". Wexall must acknowledge, that his criticism was ve- 
ry sharp and objective. He pointed to all the mistakes which ap- 
peared in the cited Church History and presented the writer with 
right corrections, to correct his mistakes. We admit, that in 
that time Julius D. Grigassy did not write one word against the 
above quoted words of Geza Varga. We cannot presuppose , that 
Julius D. Grigassy was not aware of that part, which was writ- 
ten about the Ungvar Union, when he critieied in detail other 
parts of this book. Consequently he agreed with Ge'za Varga; he 


agreed with Geza Varga; he agreed that the Union was concluded in 
Ungvar and that it had three conditions. On page 100 of this book 
it speaks about the Romanian Union which was concluded with the - 
Roman See October 7, 1698, 52 years later then the Carpatho Rusin- 
s Union. This Union was concluded by the same form at the Union 
of Ungvar under the same conditions. Julius D. Grigassy did not 
oppose it. It is necessary for us to mention that Julius D.Grigas-- 
sy did not oppose Geza Varga, when he wrote about the Brest Union . 
which was concluded in 1594, in which he wrote that Pope Clement 
permitted the Uniates to preserve, keep unviolably their Rite 
Church discipline and the liturgical language. 

Now if we analize the matter logicly, we note, that the Brest 
- Ungvar and the Romanian Union concluded with the Roman See un- 
der such formalities, as if the presribed for them, as in the Car- 
patho Rusins and later the Romanian clergy copied the form of the 
Brest Union. Furthermore we note that all these Unions, were con- 
cluded not without a condition, but, under the same conditions, 
i.e. In Brest, Ungvar and the Romanian Synod we note a repetition, 
that the uniting wish to maintain the Rite, discipline, language 
and beside this requesting other rights. 

Julius D. Grigassy praises the "Church History" of Alexander - 
Mikita. Therefore he acknowledges all that, the cited writer wrote 
about the Union. Also, we note that Julius D. Grigassy acknowledg- 
es what Andrew Balugyanszky wrote about the Union, even when And- 
rew Balugyanszky writes that Pope Alexander VII, approved the Ung- 
var Union. 

After the foresaid we can propose the following questions for 
deliberation. If it is a fact, that the Brest, Ungvar and the Ro- 
manian Unions were concluded formally and essentially; If it is a 
fact, that these Unions were concluded under the same conditions, 
then by what reason and foundation can someone state, that the Ung- 
var Union, is only a one sided declaration. We are aware that the 
Popes were informed about all the Unions and that the Popes expres 
sly guarenteed and respected these conditions. Such statement 
could be stated only by a tendency of such an opinion, to harm the 
inviolability of the Greek Rite Catholic Church of the Carpatho Ru- 
sin people. 

Secondly the matter is not of a lesser importance, if by forma- 
lity and reality these Unions are the same, exact and obligatory on 
both sides, everywhere Greek Rite Catholics are living. Then by what 
right can the form and existance of the Union be changed after 300 
years ? By what right can it be permitted that in the United States 
of America the Greek Rite Catholic Carpatho Rusins have a Union of 
another character not the same as in the Old-country ? In the Old- 
country celibacy is not forced, no Bullas are issued against the 
traditional form of rite and discipline to the Greek Rite Catholic 
Church in the United States of America the faithful are disturbed - 
with all kind of unwanted reforms. How can the Greek Rite Catholic 
Church exist in the Old-country with another discipline, another ge- 
neric rite, another then in the United States of America ? If the 
married clergy were good for 300 years in the Old-country EVEN AT 
PRESENT, why is it bad, accursed and sinful in the United States ? 
If celibacy is so good, then why doesnt the Roman See "LOVE" our 
Old-country brothers as much as us, Why doesnt Rome make them for- 


tunate with the same favor as we are favored ( Because the Old- 
country bishops of Ungvar - Presov and Hajdudorog opposed celi- 
bacy, that is why celibacy was not introduced in the Old-country) . 
We cannot understand, how the same rite and the same discipline 
can exist in different forms without the change of its character? 
How can exist in the Old-country the Greek Rite Catholic Church 
with its rite and discipline and differently in the United States 
of America. 

It is necessary for us to occupy ourselves with the not conse- 
quent deficiency, found in Hodinka Antal's book, because his his- 
tory of the Munkacs Eparchy seems to be not an important source 
for those, who doubt the two sided contract obligation of the Ung- 
var Union. 

We acknowledge and respect Hodinka Antal as a good compiler , 
collector of historical material, especially, because he himself 
admits, that he met with hardship from the part of the Secretary 
of the Propagation of Faith Congregation, when he was collecting 
material in Rome concerning the history of the Munkacs Eparchy 
He mentioned that:" it was necessary for him to give, pay a lot - 
of money for the transcript of the documents . Out of all this we 
can see, that even, that he Hodinka Antal knew the Oldslovanic Ru- 
sin, Latin, German and Hungarian languages, most of the document- 
s were written in those languages, still others had to copy the- 
se documents for big money . " 

Such a condition, i.e., the stated complaint of Hodinka Antal 
is in itself not a very important matter, but it permits us to 
doubt that he actually was able to see all the documents or that 
he received a copy of all the documents . 

What stops us here and forces us to doubt; the fact that Ho- 
dinka Antal states the document of the Union was not written in 
1646, when the 63 priests appeared in Ungvar and proclaimed the 
Union in the presence of Bishop George Jakusics . The circumstan- 
ces and opinions of many historians , also a healthy logic presup- 
posess , that such an important act could not been made without a 
written document. This seems all the more true, because Bishop 
George Jakusics invited the priests by mail to attend the Synod - 
in Ungvar. The priests could not invented the conditions about 
which we know that had been described in the petition of the cler- 
gy in 1652 in the Ungvar chapel, which were approved in writing - 
in 1648. These 63 priests had to know about them earlier, they had 
to confer with each other and agree in this matter . They had to 
go to Ungvar prepared. Neither did Bishop George Jakusics go to 
Ungvar without knowing what the clergy were thinking, and have in 
mind. Most probably he must of received some prior notification a- 
bout it in writing and he too invited the clergy by mail for the 
Synod . 

It was a suprising matter concerning the most important act - 
and the conditions of the declaration and loyalty to the Roman See 
that minutes were not written. Hodinka Antal states, that there is 
no trace of such minutes, therefore such minutes were not written. 
Still Hodinka Antal does not doubt that the Union was concluded 
in 1646, and acknowledges that sihce May 23, 1644 to May 14, 1648 
there is no written document, but a document of May 14, 1648 prov- 
es that the Union of the clergy falls on that date. 

We are well aware that Bishop George Jakusics died in 1647 and 


it is stated that the Union was concluded in his presence. On ac- 
count of this statement, it is not correct to assume as appears - 
in the document of 1652, that the Union was concluded in 1649. We 
repeat again, that all logical remarks prove, that a document was 
written about the concluding of the Union of Ungvar in 1646 . But 
this first and very important document was lost. According the o- 
pinion of Hodinka Antal , there was no document. 

Let us look now in a history of another not as important docu- 
ment. We are aware, so does Hodinka Antal admit, that in 1652 a 
petition was written to the Roman See about accepting the Rusin 
clergy in the fold. In this document, three conditions concerning 
the Union are described in concluding of the Union in Ungvar 1646 
(1649) Hodinka Antal in this document, which he named "UNION DOCU- 
MENT" : In January 1652 Primate George Lippay is writing the docu-: 
ment .(It is sad tc say, that even this letter was lost) . In this 
letter Primate George Lippay sent or intended to send a petition 
of the clergy, January 15, 1652 in which he reported the Union - 
with the Roman See. This petition of the clergy is not mentioned 
in tha original document, but, we are aware of it from a transla- 
tion copy which is in Pozsony (Bratislava) Chapter Archieves. 

The less important documents about which Hodinka Antal gives 
a detail description, were not lost, but especially those docu- 
ments in which the conditions and circumstances of the Union are 
described, which were important documents. A strange matter. 

Can we be blamed for our doubts ? 

Can we be blamed for saying that in this matter we see some- 
kind a tendency of an evil minded work, from the part of those , 
whose interest requsted it be set aside and keep in secret all 
that which is most important for the Greek Rite Catholic Carpa- 
tho Rusin people. We believe that already then some 300 years a- 
go, that the enemies of the Uniate Church, skilfully, alertly, 
hid all, which could documentarily prove the rights of the 
Greek Rite Catholic Church, its clergy and faithful. 


Hodinka Antal did not do all that. What is worst he tries to 
belittle the importance cf the document of 1652 and writes:" It 
is impossible to depend on the 1652 year conditions of the Union 
because Rome never saw them nor approved them. The one sided ag- 
reement cannot obligate the other part. 

Our remarks to all this are as follows: 

1. Hodinka Antal contradicts himself, when he states, that 
this document was sent or should been sent to the Holy See ,with 
Primate George Lippays letter, which he sent in January 1652. 

2. Hodinka Antal writes: on the foundation of the last let= 
ter of Primate George Lippay , the Pope gave over the matter to 
the Propagation of Faith Congregation, about which Primate Geor- 
ge Lippay in July of that year writes, not to the Pope, but to - 
the Congregation. 

3. Hodinka Antal writes:" Pope Alexander VII approved Par- 
thenius as a Bishop. We are also aware, that the clergy request- 
ed the approval in the same petition in which were the condi- 
tions mentioned. 


Therefore: Anthony Hodinka himself is nullifying his statement 
as if the Pope of Rome did not know anything about the matter of 
the Ungvar Union. Beyond measure , he is making it impossible - 
for himself to decidedly conclude it, when on another page he 
writes differently. ( By the addendum we wish to mention the ci- 
ted book an official book of Vatican: Cofif. Can. Orient. Ponti - 
Fasc. VIII. studi Storici sulle fonti del dirotto can. Orient . - 
(Tip. p. Vaticana Part - Rut fontes jures canonici Eccl. Ruthenae. 
The composer of this part is Dionesius Holovecky, O.S.B.M. an Uk- 

Writes as follows : 

" Synodus Nationalis (Latinorum) in Trnava, anno 1648 celebra- 
ta in qua praesens fuit Petrus Parthenius Rostosinsky Episcopus - 
Ruhenorum Subcarpatia , petendo Unionem, cum Ecclesia Catholica 
Unia facta fuit solomniter in Ungvar dei Aprili 24, 1649 (sed quo 
jure ?) praesentibus 63 sacerdotibus Futhenis". A national Synod 
of the Latin Rite was held in Trnava in 1648 at which Peter Par- 
thenius of Subcarpatia was present, requesting a Union with the 
Catholic Church. The Union was established in Ungvar April 24,1649 
(se quo jure?) in the presence of 63 Rusin clergymen. 

To the question of D. Holovecky, "sed quo jure ? By what right 
was the Union of Ungvar concluded by the 63 clergymen ? Our reply 
is as follows : 

Such a question is valuable anough at present, after the 300 
year of the existing Union, and still more, because D. Holovecky, 
could of easily find for himself a reply to this question of "Lae- 
tentur Coeli" Bulla. But, the fact is that the concluded Union is 
acknowledged in Rome, in the official publication. In this para- 
graph it is written: " Anno vero 1652 Januari 1. celebrata fuit 
Synodus Ruthenorum in Ungvar, in qua petebant Unione cum Romana 
Ecclesia et confirmationem Episcopi Partheni , confirmatio Parthe- 
ni venit per Breve Alexandri P.P. Vtl. die VI, 1655. 

This is a proof, that Rome was notified about the conclusion 
of the Union and that the petition of the clergy then, therefore 
the statement of Hodinka Antal is not correct, that this document 
was not seen in Rome in 1652 . 

Furthermore we are aware, that the 63 priests in Ungvar plac- 
ed their Profession of Faith in the presence of Bishop George Ja- 
kusics in 1646 and declared, that they acknowledge the Pope of Ro- 
me as the Head, under the three conditions. On the foundation 
of this, others later on also joined the Union. Now it is neces- 
sary for us to consider the following facts : 

1. The Union was concluded under conditions before the re- 
presentatives of the Roman Catholic Church. Primate George Lippay 
who was delegated by the Pope, was aware of all this and agreed 
with it, eo ipso on the foundation of these historical facts. 

2. In a Union there are two parties and conditions. 

3. In the above given (1-2-3) it is clear, that the Pope of 
Rome was notified and was aware of the conclusion of the Ungvar 
Union . 

Consequently the statement of Hodinka Antal generally said 
that the Union does not obligate the Pope of Rome, because he is 
not aware of it. This will not stand. 

Concerning the claim, that the Pope of Rome did not approve - 
the Union, we wish to remark, that such a testimony is contrary 


to documented historical facts, documents of the Holy Roman See 
and the past 300 years of the Greek Rite Catholic Church of the 
Carpatho Rusin people. The illogic and impossibility of such a 
statement we have already proved. 

Now the question is: If it is true, that the conditions of 
the Ungvar Union do not obligate the Pope of Rome, because he 
did not see the document, therefore he could not approved it , 
then WHAT ? 

Then we must think about the juridical principle philosophy, 
namely: If I present another party anything under condition, what 
so ever, and if the other party does not receive it in its hands, 
according by my knowledge, my presentation, my act has no obli- 
gatory strenght, not for him, nor for me. Only in a case, there 
is an exception of this principle . In case the other party is a 
minor (under age) . 

Therefore when Hodinka Antal says, that the conclusion is a 
one sided, one which cannot obligate the other party. He conclud- 
es that the document of the Union of 1652 does not obligate the 
Pope of Rome. But, it still obligates the United ones. This is 
contrary to the most elementary scientific science law. This is 
contrary to logic, this is contrary to justice. 

If they are opposing us with the argument that the Pope of 
Rome did not see the petition of the clergy, wishing to unite, 
therefore he is not obligated to respect the conditions of the 
Union, then with this it is expressed that the Union does not ex- 

We do not believe that the opponents of the Ungvar Union wan- 
ted to announce that, because it is a actual fact, that the Uni- 
on exists. It is also a fact, that the Roman See knew about the 
Union . 

Hodinka Antal is very weak with his juridical philosophy , 
when he says : that the document of Union 1652 does not obligate - 
the Pope, because at that time it was not seen in Rome. 

The Pope of Rome is not a person, but an institution. There- 
fore it is not important, that the Pope did not see the document 
then, or later. When ever Rome saw the Union document, then it 
was seen and when it was seen, Rome was notified at that moment 
about the Union. At that moment the Pope was obligated to take 
interest in that Union, then Rome could have done the following: 

a) Approve it by announcing it. 

b) Or not to approve it saying that the Union of Ungvar is 
not accepted. 

c) Or "tacite" approve it. Qui tacet consintire videtur. - 
This rule of law exists in all legal systems beginning with the 
Roman Law up to the Churches Canon Law. 

Even if it would allow, that Rome did not publish the approv- 
al of the Ungvar Union, it is known, that she approved it "tacite" 
and later on approved it with her deeds. 

Furthermore: If we would accept this stipulation, that the - 
Union in its character is a "petition", then how could Hodinka An- 
tal and others who refer to him say, that , that petition of the 
clergy, who wished to unite with Rome, Rome did not approve it ? 
That would been a very suprising move from the part of the Pope - 
of Rome, who always is working for the Union of all churches. 

From the above it is evident, that Hodinka Antal made his con- 


elusion concerning the value of the Union document , acknowledged 
its existence, even that, that this document was known to the Po- 
pe of Rome, then got lost illogically and totally ignored the 
juridical Law of Science, logic and the healthy mind. 

We conclude with that, that according our opinion there is 
an Ungvar Union which was from the very beginning a conditional 
petition, which in case of announcement or tacite acception by 
the Roman See ( as an institution) it becomes a two sided obliga- 
tory act. Such a proposition is proven. The contrary is not. 

Ergo: The UNGVAR UNION has a character of a contract, and no 
one can by itself, without the other party change it or destroy 
the Union totally or its parts. This is our opinion and conclusion 
in an agreement with facts. This is an opinion of well known 
Church historians. 

( It is impossible to refer to the Union conditions of 1652 
since Rome "NEVER" saw them, nor confirmed them. Make note of the 
word "NEVER". It is suprising when serious persons permit them- 
selves freedom to falsification) . 


It is interesting to study the development of this STRUGGLE, 
which was waged against the forceful introduction of celibacy . 
This struggle began immediately when the first Greek Rite Cathol- 
ic priest appeared on the horizon of the United States of America. 
It is generally known, that this struggle was not provoked by Ro- 
me, not by the Greek Rite Catholic people or clergy, but by the 
higher Roman Catholic clergy with their impatient temper towards 
the Greek Rite Catholic Church, because the Greek Rite Catholic 
PRIESTS WERE MARRIED MEN. It is not necessary to repeat the known 
particularities details. We do not wish in the repitition of this 
belittling and daring un justice to move the hearts of the readers. 
We only wish to state, that our people and our clergy, always 
viewed this struggle as not caused by Rome, but by persons, who - 
had no right to mix into our affairs. They wished to dictate to 
us, if not directly, then indirectly. All this was done by certa- 
in clergy of higher authority without prudence in their actions - 
or motives. 

They began to struggle against us, or over us, when the first 
immigrants, and first priests arrived. At that time they knew - 
nothing or very little about us. In their ignorance they went a- 
gainst us as if we were not full members of the Catholic Church, 
which they intended to defend from "SCANDAL" of our clergy family 
life, a defence which was not very succesful for them on account 
of "SCANDALS" of some of the celibate Latin Rite clergy. 

We all are aware of the first cause of the struggle against - 
us: Rome is attempting to force celibacy upon us, and other re- 
forms according the taste of the local Latin Rite clergy. We bra- 
vely opposed such orders, which caused us so much unconvenienc- 
es during the past 50 years. If we would have known, that the 

will of the Roman See is totally independent from material 

strenght and moral inflation of some high placed American Roman 
Catholic authorities, then our behaviour would been different. 

If our bishops and the clergy would freely arrive to the con- 
clusion, that some reforms are necessary for the well being, of our 


Eastern Rite Church; if such reforms have been introduced in a - 
practical method and with prudent respectful feeling to our peo- 
ple; If there would been tenderness from the part of the reform- 
ers, then we could have recommended and judged the matter with 
other feelings and cooperate with those, who wished good deed 
with such reforms. But, the matter is totally different. The his- 
torical facts are that the Roman Catholic clergy acted with hos- 
tility towards our Greek" Rite Catholic Church in the United Stat- 
es of America. 

Bishop Soter Ortynsky acknowledged this fact in his Pastoral 
Letter of August 25, 1913. ( In this letter he is pleading to - 
free the Greek Rite Catholic Church from foreign influence and - 
expresses joy to be free from the Latin Rite Bishops.) . 

There is a great difference, between the tone of late Bishop 
Soter Ortynskys Pastoral Letter and the Pastoral Letter of Bish- 
op Basil Takacs of May 18, 1931. Bishop Basil Tak.acs writes in 
the words of the Latin Rite Bishops, who do not care to see the 
freedom of the Greek Rite Catholic Church about which Bishop So- 
ter Ortynsky writes so inspireingly . 

Bishop Basil Takacs writes as follows: We will not be self- 
confident, that the Catholic Church will not exist without us, 
that we are indispensible in the program of the UNIVERSAL CATHOL- 
IC CHURCH. On the foundation of this we cannot dictate or refer 
to the contract of Union, securing certain privileges. From oar 
part that would be the testimony of our weakness , because the 
300 year old Union should been tied stronger with the Church of 
Christ and inject in our hearts a practical religious life, re- 
spect of the Church authority and the feeling of obligation,... 
If in this matter fear is found and we have a serious reason to 
recall, that, it is the fault of our ancestors, that we have the 
least of our dignity, we should deny it, because otherwise it 
would mean the destruction of our rights to exist. 

These words are every way offensive. Out of these words the 
only thing we can see is that Bishop Basil Takacs is repeating 
the standpoint of certain Roman Catholic Bishops of the United 

States of America:" If you do not want to live the way we request 
of you through Rome, if you do not stop recalling your contract 
and traditions and the 300 year old Union laws and rights, if you 
dare to express your sorrow, then WE DO NOT NEED YOU. The Univer- 
sal Catholic Church will exist without you, and you are not in- 

despensible from the Church's program " To speak in such 

manner it is not a prudent move, it does not agree with the prin- 
ciples of the Catholic Church. For us to deny our feelings and 
our love for our own, to protect our personal dignity is to con- 
demn our ancestors, who united with the Roman See. This is a ve- 
ry strange recommendation. If we are the childr&n of our father 
can we not express our sadness before our Father ? If we refer - 
to the traditions and the 300 year old Union of our ancestors, we 
show that the customs of our Church are pleasant to us . How can 
we be the witnessess of our poor status and destroy our rights 
of existtance ? From one day to another such important reforms 
cannot be introduced and due to circumstances . The shortness of 
time makes it impossible to prepare the people for these reforms , 
contrary to their feelings and understandings . 

To accuse the Greek Rite Catholic clergy and the faithful, of 


wanting to dictate is not correct. We all are aware (so is Bishop 
Basil Takacs) , that the Roman See received many petitions from us 
during the past 42 years, and that Rome itself was aware in 1914 
about the injustice of time and opportunity to force reforms a- 
gainst the sentiments of the people and clergy. It is a very ru- 
de act to hurl the charge at the people and clergy. ( A charge 
we heard with indignation and bitterness from our own bishop) . - 
taken if we think that we are indispensible in the program of the 
Universal Catholic Church, and that our apprehension and natural 
opposition of reforms destroys the right of our existance. 

It is very sad to read such words, because we are aware, that 
competent persons repeatedly expressed themselves, that Rome is 
not forcing these reforms, but the Latin Rite clergy of the Unit- 
ed States of America is. We are well aware that the cause of 
this struggle is not a dogmatic one, but a lesser matter, i.e. , 

When the multitude of Papal documents repeat the holiness of 
rite, eastern discipline and reminds the Latin Rite Bishops to re- 
spect those, then there is no place to speak to us as if we were 
totally superflous and not wanted in the Catholic Church. .Accord- 
ing to our humble opinion such a tone and standpoint is one of - 
the great reasons, that the struggle became bitter and unsparing. 

Bishop Basil Takacs writes in his Pastoral Letter" All the - 
rights and privileges of our Greek Rite Catholic Church are left 
in question is of discipline and does not concern Faith or Rite, 

This proves that the bishop himself acknowledges the violla- 
tion of the RITE, which is apt to cause consternation and fear. We 
are also aware, that the question involved is a lesser matter. Is 
it necessary to scandalize the people by forcing such matter which 
is of a lesser importance to cause a struggle, in which the peop- 
le can easily be destroyed, weakened in many more important matt- 
ers and prospectives . 

Rome gave a reply to this matter repeatedly (even the Patoral 
prudence gives its reply.) . When Rome became aware that the "EA 
SEMPER" Bulla is unbearable for the Greek Rite Catholics in the 
United States of America, the Bulla was revoked. 

Permit us to place on record the following facts: according 
the testimony of a letter No. 14, 244-3 of September 1,1913 sent 
to Fr. Theodosius Vaszocsik from the Apostolic Delegate . "EA SEM- 
PER" Bulla was only modified so, that the bishop did not have to 
ask for permission in administration matters as pre vious ly . The Ea 
SEMPER " Bulla has been changed only so far as it relates to his 
jurisdiction. As for the rest of the "EA SEMPER" it remains un- 
changed. The same is in the Decree of the Congregation of Propaga- 
tion of Faith No 33-346 of May 28, 1933, where it is expressly 
stated that it concerns only the full jurisdiction for Bishop So- 
ter Ortynsky and his successors . 

The "EA SEMPER" Bulla was revoked in its totality "TACITE"by 
the Congregation of Faith August 17,1914. This decree begins with 
the words: "CUM EPISCOPO GRAECO RUTHENO". (Roma locuta causa fini- 
ta.) . 


Still Bishop Soter Ortynsky December 12, 1913 signed, accept- 
ed and approved the request of the Johnstown Ecclesiastical Nati- 
onal Congress in which are the following: 

Paragraph 24."The Bishop is to ordain even the married semina- 
rians to be Greek Rite Catholic priests according the rights and 
ascribed by the Church". 

Par. 25." The Bishop is to protect and defend the Greek Rite 
Catholic Rusin Church and the Eastern Rite . " 

This is proof that the bishop did not look at the "EA SEMPER " 
Bulla concerning celibacy and the violations of the Eastern Rite, 
which was still in force, even though Bishop Soter Ortynsky was 
in a simular situation, even more burdensome position than Bishop 
Basil Takacs. He openly expressed himself against the order of - 
the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, which caused unrest among the people and 

If Bishop Soter Ortynsky could have done this, then, why should 
our self defence mean the "DESTRUCTION OF OUR RIGHTS OF EXISTAN- 
CE", as Bishop Basil Takacs wrote in his PASTORAL LETTER of - 
May 18, 1931 

How could Bishop Soter Ortynsky "ACCEPT AND APPROVE" the re- 
quest of an Ecclesiastical National Congress, when he was aware - 
that these requests are contrary to the order of the Congregation 
of Propagation of Faith. We do not believe that Bishop Basil Ta- 
kacs wished to blame the late Bishop Soter Ortynsky for his self 
confidence in his accepting and approval of the requests of the 
Ecclesiastical National Congress. Would Bishop Basil Takacs name 
it a poor testimony ? We do not think, that Bishop Basil Takacs 
wished to blame Bishop Soter Ortynsky with the charge that he was 
rushing "TO DESTROY OUR RIGHT OF EXISTENCE". Then neither can the 
present faithful and clergy be blamed. 

In reality neither Bishop Basil Takacs nor we believe, that Ro- 
me would really and absolutely, without a reason wish to introdu- 
ce reforms as they are presented to us. 

We doubt that we are indispensible for the Catholic Church - 
and not wanted in it. 

THOLIC CLERGY IN THE United States of America. We also do not be- 
lieve, that Bishop Basil Takacs veriously and actually believed - 
what he wrote in his PASTORAL LETTER, namely, that all those who 
oppose the reforms have the thought in mind that the Universal Ca- 
tholic Church would exist without them. Perhaps the Bishop intend- 
s to frighten the defenders of the Eastern Rite. Instead, the Bi- 
shop made them bitter and their feelings were deeply offended, 
when they acted according their conviction . Finally it is necessa- 
ry to remark, that scaring and blaming do not have a convincing 


In the very beginning of the struggle against the forceful in- 
troduction of celibacy in which, the clergy and people visualized 
an attempt to violate the Eastern Rite. Contrary arguments were 
formed against opposition. We have quoted the PASTORAL LETTER of 
Bishop Basil Takacs of May 18, 1931, in which Bishop writes : "All 


the rights and privileges of the Greek Rite Catholic Church were 
left for us by the Roman See, it only took away the right of - 
the marriage of the clergy, which is a disciplinary matter and 
does not pertain to Faith or Rite, as some thought and stated, 
to raise in the people consternation and fear". 

The question of RITE and DISCIPLINE is a matter of theologi- 
cal Science. We laymen cannot ascribe to ourselves such a right 
or give an opinion from our part. Not educated in theological 
studies we may present such remarks of undoubted, specialists, - 
members of the Church Science, who are accepted, known and quali- 
fied in the theological questions . Every right minded person can 
make his conclusion on the foundation of the presented opinion - 
of theologians . 

In the above given quoatation of Bishop Basil Takacs, he is 
making a distinguishing point between discipline and rite . He 
says clearly, that celibacy is a matter of discipline and not of 
rite, therefore celibacy has nothing to do with the rite,. 

We have at hand the minutes of the Clairton, Pa. , and Home- 
stead, Pa., Court cases. In these Court cases Julius D. Grigassy, 
as a secretary of the Greek Rite Catholic Exarchate , of the U- 
nited States of America, testified in Court, that marriage of 
the Greek Rite Catholic clergy is the most important part of the 
Eastern Rite as a disciplinary matter. Such an opinion of one, 
who not only because of his education and knowledge, but, also be- 
cause of his office carries more weight and more importance than 
we are aware. Julius D. Grigassy is also a great factor with the 
Bishop in our Exarchate. Julius D. Grigassy contradicts even the 
Bishop and all those who state that a RITE and DISCIPLINE are se- 
parate matters and are not tied together. Such a stand of Julius 
D. Grigassy is not new. In the Old-country he wrote articles 
printed in the "DUSPASTYR" in 1924. In this article he presented 
a very good project to compose uniformity, to unite in the RITE 
of the Greek Rite Catholic Ols-Slovanic Rite to secure a healthy 
development and a future of the Greek Rite Catholic Church of the 
Old-Slovanic Rite. In this article Julius D. Grigassy presents a 
decision in defense of marriage of the Greek Rite Catholic clergy, 
underlining the words of Canon Law, that even in the Canon Law of 
the Church the discipline of the Eastern Rite is mentioned often. 
Canon Law refers to the Law of the Latin Rite Church, which obli- 
gates the EASTERN CHURCH ONLY in nature and matter which concerns 
the Eastern Rite Church." 

He does the same in that part where he speaks about marriage 
of the seminarians: clerics, seminarians of the Eastern Rite of 
Major Orders, exception is the position of a bishop, it does not 
forbid the material position position before ordination and for 
the upkeep of purity as much as they are obligated; That those 
that sinned against it commit a sacrelige". 

Here we are aware, that Julius D- Grigassy does not agree with 
the statement that the marriage of the clergy as such, as a mat- 
ter of discipline does not belong to the terrain of the Rite. 

In general, in the Old-country and in the United States of A- 
merica the stand bf our clergy was always such, that the marriage 
of the clergy is a part of the Rite. 


May 8, 1916 a pamphlet appeared by the pen of Michael Artim, 
J. CD. In the mentioned pamphlet titled : "R I T U S "we read the 

" Rite , includes not only "HOSPODI POMILUJ" but , also all sin- 
gle species of the Greek Rite Church as well as vesting, the text 
of the language of the ritual book, fasting prescribed by the 
Church, MARRIAGE OF PRIESTS, Julian Calendar and all the customs 
used in the Church . " 

In 1902 in Ungvar a little book was published, titled: "PIDA- 
LION" in which we read that the main rule ( principle in the ad- 
ministration of the Latin Rite Church is, what is expressed in Ca- 
non Law. Laws: all the acknowledged Church Rites are to be pre- 
served in their totality as much as possible and that the married 
Greek Rite Catholic priest is a matter of RITE, which is acknow- 
ledged in the 13th Canon of the Trullian Synod of 1692, ion the 
foundation of which Pope Benedict XIV in his Bulla "Etsi Pastora- 
lis" writes as follows: 

" Etsi expectendum, quam maximae esset, ut Graeci, qui sunt - 
in sacris ordinibus constituti castatitatem non secus ac latini 
servarent; nihilominus ut eorum clerici, subdiaconi, diaconi et 
presbyteri uxores eorum ministeris retineant, dummodo ante sac- 
ros ordines virgines non viduas neque corruptas duxeint." 

In 1596 the Brest Union was concluded. Among the conditions 
of this Union it is distinctly expressed, that the marriage of 
the Rusin clergy remain inviolable. The exception was priest 
twice married ( dvuzenstvo) . This was necessary, because a few 
years ago Skarga a Jesuit presented a project, according to which 
the right of marriage will be taken away from the Uniates, i.e. , 
from the Uniate clergy. In the later Unions this condition is 
not mentioned separetely. 

This does not mean, that the marriage right is given up. When 
in the later Unions preservations of the Rite is spoken of, as in 
the first condition of the Ungvar Union, the preservation of :the 
MARRIED CLERGY IS INCLUDED in the preservation of the Rite. Con- 
sequently the the uniting clergy and the representatives of the 
Roman See with this acknowledged, that married clergy is a mat- 
ter of Rite . 

Certain opposers are trying to limit the territory of the ri- 
te as it would contain only the liturgical formalities . The con- 
tent of a Rite is a much wider, as the book of Canon Law testifies, 
written by John Aloysius Duskie, the title of the book is: "THE CA- 
book is approved by Censor: Thomas J. Shanan and the Archbishop - 
of Baltimore, Md., Michael J. Curley. John A. Duskie is a known 
authority on the pages of our Church life, writes as follows: 

"The Latin word "RITUS" signifies the form and mannor of any 
religious observance. It may indicate various religious customs , 
usages or ceremonies. There is another connotation of this term - 
which is important to observe. 

In the secundary or derivative sense, a Catholic Rite may de- 
signate a group of Catholics who have a proper liturgy for all 
sacred functions, a proper liturgical language, and are governed 
by a particular Ecclesiastical discipline; i.e. , Catholics of the 
Greek Rite 

Hence the term "Catholic Rite" with reference to the Easter- 


ners designate a group of Eastern Catholics or a local church - 
within the Union of the Catholic fold. This "RITE" or group is 
distinguished by certain characteristics of a proper liturgy, LI- 

Of all this it is evident, that the special discipline is not 
separated from the Rite, but belongs to it as a qualified mark - 
of it, the change of discipline means also a change of Rite. In 
general John Duskie did not make a sharp boundry between the Ri- 
te and discipline. He considered the discipline as part of the -. 
Rite, because in the matter of Rite he places FASTS and Confir- 
mation, etc In this matter John Duskie stands is the same as 

the stand of Julius D. Grigassy . 

It is very important what we read in the book of John Duskie 
concerning the activity of the Roman See concerning the Rite and 
Discipline of the Eastern Church.. 

"Pope Pius V permitted all rites that could prove an 

existence of two centuries to remain intact" "The Church 

never demaded a uniformity of rites so long as these liturgical 

expressions has as a basis the unity of faith" "Hence when 

any Eastern group which had fallen from the unity of Church 
through schism or heresy again sought admission to the true fold, 
Rome did not demand a substantial change of rites. The only re- 
quest was a Profession of Faith in the Catholic Creed and the ab- 
juration of any heretical doctrine Beyond the necessary - 

changes, the Holy See has always been anxious for the preserva- 
tion and continuance of Eastern Rite". ... Rome has always recog- 
nized that ecclesiastical customs are not the essential elements, 
so long as there is unity in Catholic doctrine and teaching. The 
fact that the Eastern Churches have different customs and eccle- 
siastical laws vindicates the general principle of the Church - 
that she does not arbitrarily impose uniformity in these matter- 
s. A law, properly speaking, in an ordinance of reason, and as 
such it must consider the circumstances of person, time and place. 

Legislation enacted with such consideration should result in 
prudent provisions. A few statements taken from the pronouncement- 
s of the Holy See and the Roman Pontiff, plainly manifest that - 
the Uniate Eastern Church rites and customs have not only been 
tolorated, but approved, protected and preserved". ... "Rome do- 
es not force the Catholics of the East to change their ancient 
rites and laws so long as they are in no wise opposed to Cathol- 
ic doctrine and practice. ... Benedict XIV gave the result of the- 
ir deliberation, which insisted upon this general principle in re- 
gard to Eastern Laws and customs: NIHIL ESSE INNOVANDUM". 

Our stand concerning the forceful introduction of celibacy is 
founded on the same opinion and persuasion, as is presented by - 
the cited words of an excellent Doctor of Canon Law John A. Duskie. 
We are aware that the Roman See does not request and cannot request 
the change of the rite or discipline, because it would oppose the 
principle of the Church, whos reality is "NIHIL ESSE INNOVANDUM" . 
In the Eastern Church, the laws (orders) given by the Roman See - 
must consider circumstances, persons, time and place. John Duskie 
acknowledges that the "EA SEMPER" Bulla, which provided a separa- 
te status, for the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins in the United State- 
s of America. Since it was not entirely satisfactory , was of - 
short duration. The Decree :"CUM EPISCOPO" which followed and - 


still continues in force has given the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins 
in the United States of America a status in harmony with that of 
their native land". 

This shows , that during the administration of the late Gabri- 
el Martyak it was not a law. " The Holy See has taken in conside- 
ration the traditions of the Eastern Church even beyond the con- 
fines of their respective countries or Patriarchates". 

On the foundation of "such remarks from a person of a Latin ri- 
te, expert on Church Laws , the only thing remains for us, not to 
loose hope. We struggle against such orders which are directed a- 
gainst tradition, customs, laws and discipline, i.e., against the 
RITE of the Greek Rite Catholic Church. 

What is the foundation of this, what is the reason of such a 
law against the married clergy of ours ? John A. Duskie says: ... 
in the judgement of the United States of American Bishops, the 
presence of married priests constituted, AT LEAST AT THAT TIME - 
(1890) a grave scandal to the Roman Catholics and non-catholics. 

We repeat that, that a "GRAVE SCANDAL" which was caused by 
our married priests " for the Roman Catholics and non-catholics " 
existed ONLY IN FANTASI OF THE LATIN RITE BISHOPS , because it can- 
not be proven with facts that the married priests actually caus- 
ed somekind of a scandal in the United States of America, among 
the Roman Catholics or non-catholics . Since when is a respectable 
family life a "SCANDAL" in the Church ? Since when is a Sacrament 
in the Catholic Church scandalous ? 

Such a standpoint of the Latin Rite Bishops is and will be 
the greatest hindrance against the Union of Orthodoxy with Dome . 
It is a very weak argument and a Pharisaical demanding with such 
an argument the change of traditional discipline, which is a 
part of the Eastern Church. John A. Duskie acknowledges the short 
duration of this argument in his statement:" AT LEAST AT THAT TI- 
ME" (1890) . We repeat, at present the argument of the "GREAT SCAN- 
DAL" is impossible according John A. Duskie. 

When the "CUM EPISCOPO" was issued (1914) for the United Stat- 
es of America, celibacy was not mentioned as a qualification of a 
Greek Rite Catholic priest, who was permitted to go for mission 
service as missionary in the United States of America, as it is - 
consequently according the meaning of Canon 22 , the previous re- 
striction, that only single - celibate priests are permitted to 
the United States of America, does not exist in this Country", i. 
e., the order for the introduction of celibacy has no power. It 
was revoked in 1914. 

So the matter stayed to 1928 and in 1929 we received the "CUM 
DATA FUERIT" Decree. Such an experimentation is not a prudent de- 
ed, neither can one say that such an experimentation is benefici- 
al for the Greek Rite Catholic Church. Such an experimentation - 
can destroy the Greek Rite Catholic Church of the Eastern Rite in 
the United States of America. Such an experimentation is contrary 
to the principles of the Church and the promises of previous Po- 
pes. On the same poor foundation of "SCANDAL" it would be possib- 
le to request the change the celibacy of the Latin Rite clergy, to 
be married clergy. 

We do not wish to go into particulars in these matters . Shor- 
tely we wish to make a few remarks concerning the argument, that 
our Eparchy in the United States of America is a MISSION TERRITO- 


We reply to this with the remark of a well known Church authority 
professor of the Ungvar Greek Rite Catholic Seminary Dr. Julius - 
Hadzsega. He writes in the "GOROG KATOLIKUS SZEMLE" (1907) .Can we 
consider the American Eparchy a MISSION TERRITORY ? Who is doing 
the mission work there ? Not the Latin Rite or the Greek Rite 
Church is doing it. In the sense of the Church Law the word"Missi- 

on" referres to unbelievers and schismatics This would be 

a grave mistake from the view of Church Law. 

We have the opinion of another Churchman Geza Petrasovics ,who 
also writes in the "GOROG KATOLIKUS SZEMLE" (1908) in the follow- 
ing manner: The "EA SEMPER" Bulla speaks about a MISSION TERRITO- 
RY and mentions Mission Church when it is establishing an Eparchy 

in the United States of America Not one of the Greek Rite 

Catholics in the United States of America is a mission subject, 
nor are they in a group a mission morally or lawfylly.The priests 
cannot be missionaries. The Latin Rite clergy are not missionari- 
es in Hungary, because they are not spreading a new religion, but 
caring to save the religion in the people, who were seeking work 
in the United States of America. 

We are remarking and adding to this point of view, that in the 
United States of America there is NO MISSION TERRITORY. Precisely, 
because there are Greek Rite Catholics there. 

Julius D. Grigassy for saw and wrote in 1924 that, our Eparchi- 
es in Galicia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Jugoslavia, United States 
of America, Canada, etc. even though they have in general the sa- 
me rite externally, still there is a wall between them, which is 
simular to the Chinees Wall, because internally there is no such 
an internal vein that would cross over and give life to each Epar- 
chy. If this condition will continue on, then there will not be 
a unity among the Greek Rite Catholics of the Old-Slovanic Rite 
and in a short time the mark of unity will disappear, and every 
Greek Rite Catholic Eparchy of the Old-Slovanic Rite, even being 
subjected to the highest authority, i.e., the successors of St Pe- 
ter. Day by day they will part away from the brotherly Greek Rite 
Eparchies and will function separately independently, not fulfill- 
ing the wish of our Saviour: "THAT THEY ALL BE ONE". 

Julius D. Grigassy wrote the truth, but at present he does - 
not want to remember his wise, prudent words, even though he sees 
the division of the Greek Rite Catholic Eparchies, by introducing 
all kinds of unreasonable reforms and novelties according the 
wishes of the Latin Rite clergy. It is possible that he is not a- 
ware of all this, that the unrest of the Greek Rite Catholics is 
combined with unpleasantness , because of imprudent and unreasonab- 
le reforms directed to one goal: To shatter the Greek Rite Cathol- 
ic Church that it to become a prey of Latinization. 


The forceful introduction of celibacy in general is considered 
as a first step to Latinization of the Eastrn Rite. If the opinion 
be right or wrong can still be debated. But, such a feeling exists 
among the Greek Rite Catholic faithful and the majority of the cler- 
gy. It is necessary to admit in the interest of truth, that the 
whole matter is not without a foundation . Read the history of the 
Church in Hungary, to see the continous work of introducing Latini- 


zation in the Eastern Rite Church. In the early Hungary the Eas- 
tern Church especially during the first three centuries of the 
independent free life of Hungary the Eastern Church was strong and 
noteable. But, the Roman Catholic Churches' imperialism stubernly 
led its politics of Latinization. With forceful methods by the u- 
se of diplomacy they were able step by step to weaken and just a- 
bout erradicate the life of the Eastern Church in the territory 
of Hungary. 

The Carpatho Rusins stood up most stubernly against the ten- 
dency of Latinization of Rome, even though at that time there ex- 
isted the most cruel Latinization politics. There is no place at 
present to occupy ourselves with this matter. But, those who wish 
to know more about the persecution of the Greek Rite Catholic Ru- 
sins from the part of Latins may read the book of Nicholas A.Bes- 
kid "KARPATORUSSKAJA PRAVDA" in which there are many details a- 
bout persecutions . Among others he writes : " Pope Gregory in his 
Decree of July 14, 1372 ordered the Krakow Bishop to drive out 
the Rusin Bishops from the whole territory. "Brevi Manu". In Po- 
land the Eastern Rite Divine Services were named idololatry, the- 
ir churches were compared with the Jewish Synagouges . Their chur- 
ches and other properties were rented to Jews, from whom it de- 
pened will they permit them the Orthodox to use the churches for 
Divine Services, or not. Up to 1501 they repeatedly rebaptized tho- 
se Eastern Rite persons, who changed to the Latin Rite. It is 
known, that in those days only that was considered Catholic reli- 
gion, which was expressed according the Roman Latin Rite. 

In Hungary Latinization became powerful during the reign of 
the ANJOUS , who were by birth Italians . On account of this reason 
the Carpatho Rusin territories were under the supervision of an - 
Italian, namely DRUCETH (family) . 

The people suffered immensely under the forceful Latinization 

leaving the valleys and running to the mountains , In 1471 

Cardinal Mark arrived in Hungary to convince King Matyas , to take 
care of the remainder of Rusins, to destroy them. True, King Maty- 
as did not do that and with this the Latinization did not end, it 
still continued more or less severely. 

When the Habsburg Dynasty received the Hungarian throne, than 
the Rusin people, especially during the time of Reformation and 
counter Reformation had suffered still more. They stood between - 
the two fires in a frightful position. They were persecuted by - 
the Reformers and also by the Roman Latin Rite Catholics. Nichol- 
as A. Beskid writes that it is characteristic, that the Latin Ri- 
te Church appropriated for themselves some of those churches of 
which who returned from Protestantism being Uniates, as in Jakuba 
Vola, £ipjani, Li cert by Obisovce, Sedlica etc 

Clara Barkoczi the sister of the Hungarian Primate and Steph- 
en Bornemisza Saros County Lieutenent especially distinguished - 
themselves in Latinization. 

They with the accompaniment of police, sorrounded churches , 
broke the church doors and entered, led only by the Latin rite 
priest, where he placed a Host (wafer) on the altar. With this - 
act the church became a Latin Rite Church. There where the peop- 
le protested against such a force, the rebels placed them in pri- 
son, from where they were not freed until they trans fared to the 
Latin rite religion. ... They were not let free until they pro- 
mised to become apostles of Latinization. Many Rusin churches 


were destroyed, then came the Jesuits who hurridly preach- 
ed to serve the same goal . The consequence of their work was that 
the number of Rusin churches in Spis County at that time were 45, 
and in time of Primate George Lippay only 13 remained, says Ni- 
cholas Beskid. 

Further we read the following" The Greek Rite Catholic Bi- 
shops subjected themselves in all matters to the Eger Latin Rite 
Bishop, becoming ordinary Vicars. They were obligated to make - 
the Profession of Faith before him and under an Oath give loyal- 1 
ty. Without the approval of the Eger Latin Rite Bishop they had . 

no right to call a Synod, visit a church, ordain a priest 

There were times in the Munkacs Episcopal Consistory when Latins 
occupied the first place and the first ones who signed on the 
Munkacs letter head paper, were the Latin Rite priests with his 
assistant, ... The Uniate filial churches were ascribed to the - 
Latin Rite priests, .... etc.. 

The Latin politics were ready to make whatever kind a sacra- 
fice to gain their goal. With the intervention of the Government 
they turned to Andrew Bacsinszky the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop - 
of Munkacs Eparchy, with a proposition, that he lead his church - 
in such a manner as to destroy the Eastern Rite and complitely 
fuse it with the Latin Rite. For this work Bishop Andrew Bacsin- 
szky was promised that from a Uniate Bishop he will become a La- 
tin Rite Primate of Hungary. Bishop Andrew Bacsinszky did not ac- 
cept the deal. For such a great honor, the Miter of a Primate of 
Hungary, he did not sell or betray the Eastern Rite. 

The Latinization politics against the Eastern Slovanic Rite 
began at the time of SS. Cyril and Methodius, who were preaching 
the word of God in the SLOVANIC language . The German Latin Rite 
Bishops accused them at Rome with paganism. The Holy Apostles suf- 
fered immensely. In 870 Pope Adrian at the Constantinople Synod 
permitted Methodius to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in the Slovan.- 
ic language (Exception was to read the Gospel in Latin) .In 874 Po- 
pe John VIII. writes as follows: Now our letter directed to you 
through Bishop Paul of Anconita, we forbid you to celebrate the 
Divine Liturgy in the Barbaric Slovanic language. Methodius did 
not obey this order, neither did he obey late in 879, when the 
Pope repeated the prohibition, but remained faithful to the Catho- 
lic Church up to his death. He did not care about all kinds of - 
persecutions, nor for his disobedience, because he knew, that he 
was right. 

In Methodius' s person Latin politics found the greatest oppo- 
nent also the gratitude of the Slovanic Christians people who e- 
levated him to the line of Sainthood, even that St. Methodius was 
never canonized by the Roma Latin See according the present day 
prescriptions . A suprising thing happened that the Roman Pope - 
Leo XIII, bowed before the many centuries of practice and opinion- 
s of the Slovanic Catholic Christian world. In his Encyclical he 
called the attention of all the Bishops of the Catholic world to. 
acknowledge Cyril and Methodius as SAINTS, and in honoring them 
prescribed a Divine Liturgy. ( Vidi : Humer Nandor " A Szlav Keresz- 
te'nyse'g Hazank Mai Teruleten a Honfoglalas Elott". .Humer Nandor - 
is a member of the St. Stephen Society 1895 Budapest. Also Jan - 
Stanislav " Risa Velko Moravska - Sbornik Vedeckych Prac". 

It is a century old tradition with the Latin Rite Bishops to 


oppose the Eastern Rite. We must admit that they many a times in- 
voked the Popes of Rome to issue orders , which otherwise would - 
not been issued. When the Pope received exact, true information, 
the orders were always revoked and the enemies of the Eastern Ri- 
te were reprimanded that they not disturb the Eastern Rite Church- 

Indirectly even this is testifying to the Latinization poli w 
tics that a whole line of Popes had to issue Bullas, in which 
they, with sharp and direct words, even with threat of punishment 
had to defend the Eastern Rite Church from attack of Latinizators . 

these Bullas, Adrian Fortesque writes the truth, " That not one 
of the Popes ever forcefully requested all Catholics to embrace 
the Roman Latin Rite . The whole trouble is that many Latin Rite 
Bishops, beginning with the time of SS . Cyril and Methodius up to 
the present day, the many American Latin Rite Bishops, do - not 
want to understand that "CATHOLICISM" needs unity in faith , but 
not in rite.( Adrian Fortescue's conclusion is: "In faith and mo- 
rals we all have one standard; in rites different races have the- 
ir own customs. The Uniates have exactly as much right to their - 
venerable liturgies and customs as we Roman Catholics have to our- 
s " . But all this many Latin Rite Bishops do not acknowledge in - 
practice. Therefore on account of such circumstances, it is not 
without a reason, that the Popes repeatedly were obliged to de- 
fend the Eastern Churches, that their Rite not to be swallowed up 
by the forceful Latinization.. No wonder then that Adrian Fortes- 
cue writes as he does to prove : that the Eastern Rite Catholics 
are not secondary, second class Catholics, and that the Roman Ca- 
tholics have no right to think that they have priority in the Ca- 
tholic Church, above other Rites. He is fighting as the Popes 
fought against FANATISM and IMPERIALISM of those Latins, who for- 
got, that Christ Himself was not a LATIN and that Latinism for 
the first time met with Christianity in the end of the third and 
beginning of the fourth century. 

When the Union was concluded in 1569 in Poland a thought was 
at once awakened about "UNITY" from the part of the Latin Rite 
Church authorithy. 

In 1577 Peter Skarga, S.J. published a book titled',' JEDNOS- 
CE KOSCIOLA BOZEGO" - The Unity of God's Church. This book tes- 
tifies according Peter Skarga S.J., opinion that unity is only 
possible through Latinization. He recommended the following: 

1. Destroy the married clergy. 

2. Destroy the SLOVANIC language in the Liturgy. 

3 . Free the clergy from lay influence . . 

The first two opinions show clearly his latinizing intention. 
In reply to this book a great storm of opposition arose from the 
Eastern Rite Church. Peter Skarga, S.J., was a so prudent man that 
he acknowledged the principle, that the CATHOLIC CHURCH respects 
all the Rites. In the second edition 1590 he left out the two men- 
tioned propositions . 

In a book titled "THE RUSSIAN .CHURCH" from the pen of Brian 
Chaniov we read, that in Brest, when the Union was concluded in 
1595, nothing else was done only the acknowledgement of the Pope 
of Rome and the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. But in 1720 


at the Zamosc Synod other moves were made to form uniformity with 
the Latin Rite . Certain Latin Rite Holydays were accepted as Boze 
Tilo, change of vestments, liturgical books, in order to adopt - 
them more closely to the Roman practice. A clear admittance of - 

In another book we read these reforms were regarded in Rome 
as regretable and ill convinced. (Vidi : Korolevsky, " UNION ISM" 
1927) . The Latinization attitude became a dangerous movement con- 
cerning the Union. We do not think that the Latinizing fanatics 
ever stpped dreaming of their goal. They choose other methods 
which were sharp and irritable. They continued their work silent- 
ly, imperceptibly, stubornly not considering the Bullas of Popes 
which defend the Eastern Rite. 

Pope Leo XIII published the Bulla "Orientalium Dignitas" in 
which he assures Eastern Rite Catholics, that their rite and cos- 
toms remain inviolable . But the Latin Rite clergy did not pay at- 
tention to this Bulla, as it is noted in the "Ea Semper" Bulla 
in which there is not ONLY an order about celibacy , but also a- 
bout Confirmation and other matters. ( No one can say that the - 
administering of Confirmation by a Greek Rite priest is "SCANDA- 
LOUS" matter, as the Latin Rite bishops argued against the mar- 
riage of the Greek Rite Catholic priests, i.e., that it is "SCAN- 
DALOUS " . ) . 

The "EA SEMPER" Bulla is a proof of the Latinizing tendenci- 
es against the Eastern Rite in the United States of America. 
not our brothers destroy and say that no one wishes to Latinize 
us. Not even the Latin Rite Catholic Churches circles deny that. 

RY, i.e., the modification of Eastern Liturgies, by Latin usage, 
Roman vestments, separation of Confirmation from Baptism etc, the 
importation of Western popular and ascetical practices and the - 
imposition of specially Western provisions of Canon Law among Ca- 
tholics of Eastern Rite. Legislated against Pope Leo XIII in his 
Constitution "ORIENTALIUM DIGNITAS", and under the title RUTHE- 
NIAN RITE. The use of the Greek Rite in 01d~Slovanic,but it has 

been subjected to a deal of Latinization The use of RIPI- 

DA, 2E0N, and ANTIDORON is abandened, the Roman sequence of li- 
turgical colours is followed, some translated Latin formulas ta- 
ke the place of those in their own books. ... etc. 

Thus in the order of Pope Leo XIII respected in the United 
States of America. Again in the cited Catholic Encyclopedia Dic- 
tionary that this Latinization is translated through the influen- 
ce of the Latin Rite upon the Eastern Rite through schools, semi- 
naries, missions etc 

Right in front of our eyes Latinization is introduced silen- 
tly, but gradually. In our churches Latin Services, Latin cus- 
toms are introduced: In schools they are teaching according the . 
Latin taste. Some seminarians are educated in Latin seminaries; 
In our schools are Latin Rite books are in our childrens hands , 
depicting the Latin form of Church services, Latin rite vestment- 
s. Many of our clergy are helping such a Latinizing influence , 
when they tell the faithful that we are Roman Catholics of the 
Eastern Rite and sending them to Latin Rite Churches, and the La- 
tin Rite clergy laugh at them. They never announce that the Greek 
Rite Catholic Church is as good as the Roman Catholic Church . 


Finally, our own Church authorities do not oppose such a silent, - 
gradual Latinization, on the contrary they seem to support it. 

Can we be suprised under such circumstamces , that the force- 
ful celibacy is considered the first decided move of Latiniza — 
tion ? 

It is impossible, and we are aware, that the same person, who 
state that our church is not Latinizing, that there is no Latini= 
zation tendency are well aware that the matter is not that as they 
say. They cannot be blind before historical facts as well as pre- 
sent day facts. They see all that we see, what all the people and 
clergy see, that the goal of the Latin Hierarchy in the United - 
States of America is to change the Eastern Rite so, that not even 
a trace of it remains . 


The Church must stand above nationalism, because it cannot be 
an instrument of national politics. Faith and nationalism are two 
different matters. To mix these matters is a dangerous matter for 
the Church and nationality. Some people are trying to give the 
Greek Rite Catholic Church (Uniate) an exclusive (UKRAINIAN NATIO- 
NAL CHARACTER, especially when it concerns the MALO-RUSIN, MALO 
RUS'KIJ NAROD. This is not a very happy deed. To prove this sepa- 
rately seems to be unnecessary matter. On the contrary it is neces- 
sary to show the sad consequences of such an Ukrainian politics 
within the Greek Rite Catholic Church in the territory of Galicia 
and Podkarpatska Rus ' . We are aware that in Galicia and PODKARPAT^ 
SKA Rus' "ORTHODOXY" is spreading. In Galicia, in the past time 
a remarkable number of people went over to Protestantism. Accord" 
ing authentic information this apostacy from the Greek Rite Catho- 
lic Church has its reason, in great part in fact, that leaders, Bi- 
shops of the Ukrainian Church, fanatically represent the Ukrainian 
idea, which is contrary to the sentiments of their own Rusin faith- 
ful. They are trying to spread their ideas through the Church. 

It is not our concern to occupy ourselves with the question, is 
the Ukrainian national idea legal or illegal "per se". But, being 
aware that the Carpatho Rusin people oppose the Ukrainian national 
thought ( they hate the national Ukrainian ideology) consequently 
we must state that the Ukrainian Church politics are very dangero- 
us for the Church. 

Using the Uniate Church for spreading Ukrainization could be 
one reason for apostasy in the United States of America. That such 
a danger exists can be noted in what happened in Podkarpatska Rus ' 
where a great number of the intelligentsia left the Uniate Church 
on account of emmigrant Ukrainian politics in the Munkacs Eparchy 

To belittle such a movement would be childish thing, although 
we cannot approve the movement of the intelligentsia, neither can 
we condemn them. Condemnation belongs to the Church authority , 
which selfishly and contrary to the petitions and protests of the 
Carpatho Rusin intelligentsia, led such politics a question which 
they had no right, because it was abusive for the faithful. 

Even that in our Eparchy in the United States of America such 
a direct danger of Ukrainism at present do not exist, but we must 
acknowledge, that there are among our leaders those who sympatize 
with the Ukrainization politics. Secondly we must have in mind, 



that in the United States of America there are two Eparchies, 
which are according to their character Ukrainian. In the Old-coun- 
try the Ukrainian politics are led stubernly. It is natural for 
us to feel, that we can fear the influence of such politics, from 
the part of the Old-country Eparchies and our own Ukrainizing 
Church members , who mix faith with politics . Secondly we must al- 
so admit that in the Ukrainian Eparchy a continous trend exists - 
to make it a separate Ukrainian Rite. Therefore we can name this 
movement, a Church Ukrainizing movement, against which many pro- 
tests were made by the Carpatho Rusin people. 

Our opponents state, that there is no such Ukrainian politics 
in the Church. To refute their statement we shall present some 
facts . 

The sadest deed is in this matter is that the leaders of the 
Ukrainian politics are in Rome, they are close to the throne of 
the Holy See occupying important offices, abusing their position 
with all sort of methods to spread Ukrainization in places where 
people definitely oppose it. On the foundation of authentic facts 
we must say, that it seems to us at present that Rome in matters 
of the Greek Rite Catholic Rusin Church is dictated to by fanatic 
propagators of the Ukrainian movement. They look hostily at those 
Uniate Rusins who are not inclined to the Ukrainian national ideas . 
Consequently if such politics continue from above, the Carpatho - 
Rusin people will have to defend their own national interests. 
Such politics can easily lessen the confidence of the people con- 
cerning Rome. If Roman publications will continue Ukrainian poli- 
tics, to harm the Greek Rite Catholic Rusins. Then it will not be 
justified to shout "ANATHEMA" at opposers of the Ukrainian poli- 
tics. Justice will condemn those who thoughtlessly caused a scan- 
dal, by using their Church positions to propagate political ideo- 
logy, not considering the views of the faithful. 

At present Fr. Augustine Volosin in the Munkacs Eparchy is at 
the helm of the Ukrainization movement. The same Augustine Volo- 
sin in 1930 wrote the following against UKRAINIZATION: 

"This horrible contagious infection of Ukrainism and radical- 
ism, which is spreading lately in Galicia so ferouciously, allie- 
nating the Rusins from the Church, language and EVEN THE RUSIN - 
Name, is spreading not love, but fearful hatred. This EPIDEMIC 
this plaque, yes, this EPIDEMIC was brought by Bishop Soter Ortyn- 
sky to the United States of America. Bishop Soter Ortynsky gave 
himself to be a guardian of Ukrainism. Whom our people knew 
as those in whom the main political deed is hatred against all, - 
who do not accept their teaching, especially against those Rusins 
who energeticly stick to their historical writing, language, rite 
and do not wish to fight against their blood brothers . ( Kalendar 
Misjacoslov 1909, Ungvar.) . 

A collassal difference between the past and present standpoint 
of Augustine Volosin, is clear. But then Augustine Volosin was a 
MONSIGNOR, most probably the new honor obliges him to be an Ukra- 
inian, for the sake of some Ukrainians in Rome. 

To prove that Rome is becoming influenced by Ukrainism and 
that the Ukrainians have a possibility and national influence up- 
on the Greek Rite Catholic Church and that they are working in the 
interest of spreading Ukrainism in the Uniate Church, we will re- 
call some facts : 

In 1933 the Eastern Congregation published a book , titled : 


" CODIFICATIONE CANONICA ORIENTALE", in which are compiled source 
s for the composing of the Eastern Churches Laws. The Imprimatur 
is given by Cardinal Sincero the Secretary of the Eastern Churches 
Congregation. Consequently this book represents the official Eas- 
tern Congregation, in whos hands is the fate of our Eparchy also. 

The FOREWORD was written by P. Dionisius Holovacky,OSBM, the 
highly regarded Basilian Father. This book also represents the of- 
ficial views of the Order of St. Basil the Great, an Order which 
in the past was a staunch defender of RUSINISM and the Uniate 

In the first line of the forword written by P. Dionisius Holo- 
cacky, OSBM is very clearly said: 

1 . Rutheni seu Ucraini .... 

In the third paragraph, the first line says : "The RUTHENIANS 
name themselves exclusively as Ukrainians , the Russians name them 
MALO RUSINS. The name comes from the : Galician, Carpatho Russian- 
s, Carpatho Ruthenians, Hungarian Greek Rite Catholic, Austrians, 
Poles national Ruthenians". 

After such remarks P. Dionesius Holovacky,OSBM, gives a histo- 
rical remark about the "ECCLESIA RUTHENA". 

We are aware that the Latin word RUTHENUS is a corrupt trans>- 
lation of the word RUSIN ( RUSYN ) Rus 'ki j , this words translati- 
on appears in the Papal Roman Churches documents to signify the 
Rusin people. But, P. Dionisius Holovacky in Rome as a "Delegatus 
Ruthenus" for the codification of the Church Law happily announc- 
es, that from now on " RUTHENI or Ukrainians .... name themselv- 
es EXCLUSIVELY UKRAINIANS. Being that he speaks about the "ECLE- 
SIA RUTHENA", it is understood, that there, where the Latin word 
"RUTHENUS", it is to be understood that it means Ukrainian, i.e. 
Ecclesia Ruthena , means Ukrainian Church. 

This is not satisfying. Even those Greek Rite Catholics who 
are Hungarians (Hungari Graeco Catholici) are Ruthenians as the 
Carpatho Risins. According the explanation of P. Dionesius Holo- 
vacky even they are Ukrainians. In Czechoslovakia we find 650,000 
such Ukrainians, writes P. Dionisius Holovacky, OSBM. 

It is very evident that P. Dionisius Holovacky , OSBM in the - 
light of his words appear to be straight forward Ukrainian fana- 
tic. He changes even a Hungarian to be an Ukrainian and dares to 
state such a lie that in Czechoslovakia are 650,000 Ukrainians. 
( From where he gets these facts we do not know.) It is impossib- 
le that he could not find the newest statistics of Czechoslovaki- 
an nationals, which could easily convince him, that he is not 
telling the truth. It seems that for P. Dionisius Holovacky, OSBM 
the truth is not important, only one thing is important: - the 
spreading of the Ukrainian propaganda for whatever it is worth. - 
He did not consider that this false facts in the foreword reduces 
his authority in his book, which is very important for the whole 
Church . 

How fanatical and Ukrainian is P. Dionisius Holovacky , OSBM is 
characterized in his Foreword, where he expresses his gratitude - 
to all his co-workers among others he mentions Dr. Joseph Mackov, 
who is at present in the United States of America and is a Vice 
Chancellor of our Eparchy. Dr. Joseph Mackov was a student in Ro- 
me for years. We note from P. Dionisius Holovacky s foreward that 
Dr. Joseph Mackov was his co-worker in compiling the book. Holo- 



vacky writes: Gratias ago Rmo d. Josepho Mackiv. The Ukrainian fa- 
natic p. Dionisius Holovacky OSBM even Ukrainized his name ac- 
cording the Ukrainian law of orthography , placing "i" in the name 
instead of "o" It is well known that the Eastern Congregation is 
influenced by Ukrainization . Therefore it is natural for us to - 
fear the Ukrainization, because they are dictating the present po- 
litics of our Church and are using their authority to spread Uk- 
rainism. From this very unpleasant consequences can affect the 

It is a known fact, that some of oujr seminarians in Rome are 
educated by P. Dionisius Holovacky, OSBM. Therefore the situation 
under which our seminarians find themselves is as follows: 

Permit me to quote Alexius I. Ilkovic, who was a student in 
the Papal University in Rome under Professor Dionisius Holovacky, 
OSBM.:" In the summer of 1931, I attended philosophical lectures 
in the Papal University "De Propaganda Fide" in Rome, being a stu- 
dent of the Ukrainian College, where I was under the discipline - 
of P. Dionisius Holovacky, OSBM. and P T. Haluscinsky, Editor of 
"DILO". Both of them are known as defenders of self saving Ukrain- 
ism. I never tried to nor did I mix political matters with religi- 
on, I formed my conviction in Rome at once in the Ukraini- 
an College, where at that time were 17 Carpatho Rusins, the majo- 
rity of them were from the United States of America. We found our- 
selves actually not under Catholic, but Ukrainian terror, led by 
the fanatic superiors. The Ukrainian Church authorities are not 
free from sovinistic hatred towards the Rusins in Rome. I could 
say a lot more about that, but, I did not do that until now, nor - 
do I intend to do it. 

In a conversation with P. Dionisius Holovacky, OSBM. my former 
superior, Rector, I told him, that I will fight against Ukrainism , 
for pushing their non-catholic goals in the Catholic Church. Which 
declaration I did not recall , . " 

Therefore our American seminarians are under Ukrainian terror 
in Rome. We can imagine, when they return, what kind of politics 
they will lead: Such as they were terrorised by: their heads be- 
ing filled with such propaganda that instead of the word PUS IN , 
RUTHENUS ALWAYS READ + UKRAINIAN, whether it pleases the Carpatho 
Rusins or not. 

An identification of Ukrainian politics with the Greek Rite - 
Catholicism, to present Ukrainism as the salvation of Catholicism 
among the Slovanic people everywhere repeated by Ukrainian propa- 
gandists . 

In the care of Ukrainians our seminarians are filled with the 
spirit of hatred against their own RUSIN PEOPLE. But, these peop- 
le do not want to be, and will not be Ukrainians, nor Latins, but 
will remain Eastern Rite RUSINS. 

Did these honorable, respected hard working people deserve 
this, that their sons be educated against RUSIN nationalism ?Here 
we do not wish to sound our deep grief above this sad fact, but 
with the strenght of our knowledge we say, that our Carpatho Ru- 
sin people, do not want to see in their churches, places to pro- 
pagate Ukrainism. We protest against such a socalled Ukrainism - 
which is patended as a potent of Catholic salvation. We see in - 
all this, that it is not so. The Ukrainians are loyal to the Ro- 
man See only for the sake of Ukrainism. 


Try to touch their compass. Then they will begin to speak a- 
nother tone as they did, when the Roman See became aware of the - 
bitterness of the RUSIN PEOPLE, in galicia "they dared" to appoint 
a RUSIN, not an Ukrainian bishop for the LEMKO territory. Poland - 
is going against Catholicism as if Catholicism and Ukrainism is 
the same. Rome is hostile to the Ukrainian people as if satisfying 
the RUSIN LEMKO request would be an attack against the Ukrainian 

Since when do the Ukrainians have a preference in the Greek Ri- 
te Catholic Church ? Since when must every Carpatho Rusin or Hunga- 
rian be an Ukrainian. On what foundation are they naming our RUSIN 
Bishops Ukrainians ? Look into the newspapers and books published 
by Ukrainians, there you will find an insulting rebaptism: We are 
CARPATHO RUSINS, not Zakarpatsky Ukraincy; Bishop Basil Takacs is 
a Zakarpatskij Ukrainskij Bishop for Czechoslovaks, Hungarians (ri- 
sum teneatis amici) , LAUGHTER HAS A FRIEND) and Jugoslavian Ukra- 
inians. Even Bishop Stephen Mik lossy (Bishop of Hajdu Dortog, Greek 
Rite Catholic Hungarian Eparchy. Bishop of Hungarianized Ukrainians, 
Still the opposing party is telling us that there is no Ukrainini- 
zation in our Church. Why do not the Hungarinized and Czechoslovak 
Bishops speak up against such false identification ? Perhaps they 
are under Eastern Rite Congregations pressure, to deny their natio- 
nality. Who can explain to us that under what rule is such a matt- 
er in the interest of salvation of souls ? 

Prince Alexander Volkonsky says:" The Ukrainofile assertion 
that the Ukrainian nation tends decidedly towards Catholicism, is 
a pure invention THE VERY OPPOSITE IS THE TRUTH" ... and in the 
truth the Catholic Church wants nothing, but freedom of conscience 
for its success. For this it is not needful to divide Russia in - 
any case, there is no case to support Ukrainian seperatism". 

Prince Alexander Volkonsky is a known priest in Rome, he is - 
not fighting against the not existing matter, when he writes. He 
is a Russian Catholic priest; he is fighting against the existing 
Ukrainian movement which is unmercifully destroying the confiden- 
ce of the Russian Greek Rite Catholics who are desiding about - 
the matters of the Uniate Church in Rome. 


It is not a disputable matter, that on the foundation of the - 
Ungvar Union (1646) our clergy had the right to elect a bishop - 
for themselves. The Union was concluded under this condition. This 
right was in practice, in case of Bishop Peter Parthenius and And- 
rew Bacsinszky. It is undiniable that our clergy NEVER abandened 
this right, only under forceful circumstances it had to suffer the 
violation of this right. It is clear that the clergy did not yield 
their rights and is an acknowledged fact, that the clergy were for- 
bidden to live with their right. We cannot accept this ordinance - 
as if this right was obolished. Whenever there was an occasion to 
mention the necessity of this right it was presented, e.g., in 1870 
when Church Autonomy was debated in Hungary. The cessation of 
right happens only in case deliberated refusal of right, or self 
willed stopping of use of the right; or in case the person do not 
exist. We douht , that the politics of the Roman See would have 
taken away the right especially in such case, when the right is 


clearly secured and assured. 

The Ungvar Union must be intigrated with all the conditions . 
So the second condition which speaks about the election of a Bi- 
shop by the clergy, must be respected, if the concerned group wish 
to escape the righteous accusation of the wrong intention of liv- 
ing up to the right. Such law does not contradict the foundation 
of the truth, nor the traditions of the Church. 

Therefore hez - a in the United States of America, where great re- 
ligious freedom exists , where no Kingly Dynasty , no Sovereign poli- 
tics mix into the internal life of the Church. The Greek Rite Ca- 
tholics righteously can speak about the renewal of the law, i.e. , 
right of election of a bishop by the clergy. Such an argumentto li- 
ve with this right could lead to sinful politics and agitation, it 
will not stand and is degredading to the clergy. 

Besides this, it is a fact, that the present system is not 
without fault. We are aware, that the appointment of a talented 
Greek Rite Catholic Bishop is ignored, so are the interests of 
the Church and the lay authorities. We all are aware about cases 
in which persons were nominated Bishops , whom only Rome knew and 
on account of their inability they will not be beneficial only - 
harmful to the Church. We are convinced that, if the clergy would 
have free possibility to use their right in electing a bishop , - 
such a system many times would be better for the Greek Rite Catho- 
lic Church. 

Here we must make a note , that in the United States of Ameri- 
ca, that in Roman Catholic Dioceses exists a method that they 
yearly select responsible candidates for the Episcopal authority. 
In this manner the Roman Catholics have the possibility to select 
a candidate a responsible person to be a bishop. They select tho- 
se whom they deem worthy to be a bishop. 

( Such a system does not cause a possibility of agitation) . 

We do not have even that possibility, even that the Ungvar U- 
nion secured for us the election of a bishop by the clergy. This 
right was stopped one sidedly, forcefully, therefore even at the 
present day it must be considered to exist.. 


Pastoral Letter. February 23, 
1935, No 49. 

With a sad heart I am notifying all concerned , that I was a- 
gain forced to place one streyed priest of our Eparchy, namely : 
Stephen Varzaly, Editor of the A.R. Viestnik under Canonical pe- 
nelty. The decision was brought by the Eparchial Tribunal August 
31,1931, which was approved by the Metropolitan Tribunal of Phi- 
ladelphia, Pa (Roman Catholic) August 10,1932, and by the Holy Con- 
gregation of the Eastern Churches, also approved by the Holy Fa- 
ther of Rome January 7, 1933. 

I deem it to be my Archpastoral obligation, to place him back 
into the state, as he was placed August 23, 1932, i.e. the state 

On the foundation of this my decree therefore Stephen Varzaly 
again : 

1. Suspensus est ab officio. 

2. Privatus est ab officio et beneficio 


3. Privatus est a jure deferendi habitum ecclesiasticum , 
quae privatio secumfert prohibitionem exercendi ministeria quae- 
vis ecclesiastica et privationem privilegiorum clericalium; et 
tandem : 

4. Excommunicatus est a sine totius S. Matris Ecclesiae. 

It is not necessary to describe these principles, which force 
me, as the Ordinary of this Eparchy, to give and announce the de- 
cree. Only in general I will remark about some of the moves, which 
were made by Stephen Varzaly as a priest and member of the Holy 
Mother Church. 

Stephen Varzaly, as a priest spurned Canonical Laws, without 
any permission served distant faithful, who were not his parishio- 
ners (Baptized, performed Marriage and Burial, etc ). 

Stephen Varzaly as an Editor of a religious newspaper, pro- 
mised many times in writing and verbaly to the Ordinary, the Apos- 
tolic See, that in the future he will edit the newspaper accord- 
ing a respectful Catholic spirit.. He degredaded the newspaper , 
that it is not worth of criticism, e.g.: 

1. With false evil intention explained to our faithful the 
sad fate of the Latin Rite faithful who were persecuted for their 
faith in Mexico. 

2. Falsely stating the orders of certain Ordinaries, e.g. : 
Bishop Ladyka of Canada. 

3. Falsifying the Church History, e.g., the Spanish inquisi- 

4. Proclaiming the non action of the Holy Fathers decision , 
making a fool before the faithful concerning celibacy. 

5. Beside the above mentioned, he formally called on - the 
clergy and laity to disobey, not only your Ordinary, but also the 
Apostolic See, because the Eastern Congregation has no power over 
us, and that it does not represent the will of the Holy Father. 

Stephen Varzaly as a member of the Holy Mother Church, from 
the time he was graciously freed from censure, fell so deep, that 
it is not worth mentioning. 

Above everything are his terrible statements made both to the 
clergy and laity in which he tramples upon the foundation of the 
moral law of the Holy Mother Church. (Cfr. words in the A.R.Viest- 
nik , e . g . : 

1. According the Roman logic and moral, Fr. Sarmatiuk, could 
have a housekeeper, also a servant girl and live with them, becau- 
se this belongs in foro interno and there is no permission to be 
suspicious about all, after all, the Housekeeper and servant girl 
are holy persons. 

2. Let all married clergy, especially the young ones who - 
are so blindly obedient, think over, what would they do, if Rome 
in a year or two would issue a decree, that in the United States 
of America they must leave the wife, children or the parish and 
go to the pasture. Logicly that is and will be the second move of 
the Eastern Congregation, if celibacy will conquer. 

3. In the glorious Roman Encyclicals announcing the Holines- 
s of Marriage, the obligation for the laity of bringing forth 
children, under anathema they are forbiding abortion, and forcing 
the clergy to be celibates, and permit not only successful, but of- 
ten at the same time Poligamy is permitted, without fruit, i.e. - 
using all kinds of methods against the fruit of the womb, i.e., - 
the children 


The same Stephen Varzaly dared to assert of the earthly repre- 
sentative of Christ to Whom He Himself gave the power to teach All 
Nations even to the end of the world, that the Holy Father, Pope of 
Rome, in his Decree, allows a kind of murder by those priests who, 
on the basis of the dogma of the Holy Church, choose for themselv- 
es a more perfect state of life.). 

The measure is full. Time for examination is given to Stephen 
Varzaly, that he take the example of the Prodigal Son, who return- 
ed to his father, from where he left. 

He instead of resting in the arms of his father, pushed aside 
the hands of the father extended to bless him , slapping the face 
of the Holy Father, Pope of Rome, the loving Father who was giv- 
ing his cheek to kiss. 

God be gracious to him. 

February 23, 1935 From the Eparchial Ordinariate 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 


A.R.Viestnik, September 26, 1935 
pp. 6-7. August 1,1935. 

Paragraph 70. 

The Chairman proposed the celibacy question, asking about the 
possibility of sending a committee to the Holy Father Pope Pius 

The debate began: 

Dr. GEORGE VARGA: According the decision of the Detroit, Mich. 
Convention, we should send a committee to Rome with a petition re- 
questing the abrogation of celibacy. A three member committee, two 
representatives of the Sojedinenije and one from the Church autho- 
rity, should go to Rome. The two member committee of the Sojedine-r 
nije should be two clergmen. 

FR. DESIDERIUS SIMKOW: Opposed the sending of committee to 
Rome, because such a committee will not be accepted, therefore it 
will not reach its goal. 

FR. JOHN KRUSKO: A committee should go to Rome with the coope- 
ration of Bishop Basil Takacs. 

MICHAEL KOPASZ: We still did not use all our armour in this 
struggle. I am reminding all, that the forclosure of the mortgage 
on the Bishops Residence is still not done. 

JOHN MASICH: Concerning the matter and the committee, who ne- 
gotiated with Bishop Basil Takacs and the Apostolic Delegate the 
Bishop promised, that he will go to Rome to have celibacy recall- 
ed. This promise was not kept. 

DR. TURCHIK: The cooperation of the clergy is necessary in - 
this matter, the struggle is hopeless, unless the clergy take an 
active part in this struggle. 

FRANK HABZSANSKY: What about the absence of the loyal clergy 
who promised to cooperate with the laymen, but later on stepped a- 
side. But the officers of the Sojedinenije worked conscientiously 
in the interest of the people. 

successful, if the bishop existed for three years, he can do it 
for another year, until the Convention. I oppose the sending of a 
committee to Rome. 

The debate continued and all the officers took part in it. The 


debate was about the FIRST MORTGAGE on the Bishops Residence. 

JOHN POPP and FR. STEPHEN VARZALY: proposed that the FIRST - 
MORTGAGE be reopened and the Sojedinenije Officers be enpowered - 
and obligated to request the Legal Advisor, to start a process on 
the mortgage of Bishops Residence. If the Legal Advisor would re- 
fuse to begin the process, then the President of the Sojedinenije 
is called and enpowered to hand the matter to Frank Habzsansky , 
the Sokols Legal Advisor. Proposal was unanimously accepted. 

MRS ANNA KALNAS : Proposed and Fr . Desiderius Simkow seconded 
the proposal, that the minutes of the special meeting between the 
Officers of the Sojedinenije and Sobranije in the Willi an Penn Ho- 
tel be published in the A.R.Viestnik, and the Sokol. Unanimously 
accepted . 

Nicholas Solak John Masich 


Dr. George Varga, Rev. Desiderius Simkow, Rev. Stephen Carzaly 

George Yuhasz Michael Antonik Peter J. Mackov 

Anna V. Pijatnik Justine Skarlos George Komlos 

Anna Kalnas John M. Macosko George Bovankovich 

Michael Timko John Popp Michael Dunay 

Michael J. Yuhasz Jr. Andrew Hleba Michael Yuhasz, Sr. 

John M. Herock Frank Habzsansky Andrew Dickey 


Pastoral Letter Homestead, Pa. 
No 291/1935, November 20, 1935. 

Being that many imploring requests were unsuccessful, even - 
the protests of the local Eparchial Ordinariate, as well as the 
clergy of our Eparchy, in which the officers of the Sojedinenije 
Greko Katoliceskich Russkich Bratsv in the United States of Ame- 
rica were asked to stop these religious anarchial agitations , which 
have continued for many years in the official newspaper the A.R.Vi- 
estnik, and that such agitation is really leading to a full de- 
struction of the Church discipline of the Holy Mother Church. 

On account of this reason: 

I Bishop Basil Takacs, with my given Apostolic authority and 
with an acknowledgement and approval of my Church Superiors, am 
forced to place under Church Censure - EXCOMMUNICATION -the Greek 
Catholic Russian Brotherhood - the Amerikansky Russky Viestnik- 
or useing another word the Church terminalege - place it on 

Consequently under punishment it is forbidden to any member of 
this Eparchy to read this newspaper or to give it to someone to - 
read for them. This my strict prohibition by disobeying a member 
of the Holy Mother Church commits a MORTAL SIN, the absolution of 
which through the authority of this document I hold for myself, i. 
e., until further notice of mine in this matter, from the moment 
of accepting this my document. I am taking away from every confes- 
sor of our faithful the jurisdiction "Pro foro interno" and "Pro 
foro externo". 

Although on the foundation of the Canon Law, all Episcopal - 
Laws , orders etc. After their promulgation have their obligato- 
ry strenght, still in this extra ordinary case my will and order 


is, that every priest of my Eparchy in his church on November 24, 
1935 during public services, orally announce to the faithful the 
contents of my Episcopal Decree. After this fact at once notify 
the local Eparchial Ordinariate by mail about the fulfilling your 

I am convinced that those faithful who have a practical faith 
will accept this Episcopal Decree with joy and keep it. Those that 
do not have a living faith- of Christ, or do not want to obey , to 
them let there be the punishment instituted by Christ Jesus : " if 
he refuse to hear the Church, let him be as a heathern and publi- 
can (Mt. 18-17.) . 

No 291- 1935 


I am notifying the Rev. Fathers that at the same time Fr. Mi- 
chael Staurovsky as a Spiritual Advisor of the Organization of 
the Greek Catholic Russian Brotherhood in the United States of A- 
merica, was officially notified to at once break ties in all mat- 
ters with the Editors of the A.R.Viestnik and stop writing in the 
Excommunicated newspaper . 

No 241 - 1935 


I am notifying the Rev. Fathers, that Fr. Desiderius Simkow . 
at the request of the Eparchial Ordinariate, resigned from the of- 
fice of Spiritual Advisor, an office he held to the present in the 

NO 292 - 1935 


The faithful of parochial congregations : 

1. The St. John the Baptist in Bridgeport , Conn. 

2. St. Michaels in Rankin, Pa. 

3. St. John the Baptist in Perth Amboy ,N. J. , stand by the - 
clergy, who are under Church Censure by the Holy Mother Church. 


I Bishop Basil Takacs, as the ordinary of this Eparchy .consi- 
der my strict ohligation of my Church, to place the above mention- 
ed parishes, congregations under Censureship, i.e., " Local inter" 

Rev. Fathers keep this Episcopal Decree as a strict obligation 
in your churches to announce to your faithful during the Divine - 
Services, and if necessary explain the Church penalty. 

No 293 1935 


The Organization known as "SVOBODA" LIBERTY" at its last Con- 
vention totally departed from her goal, for which it was organized 


Concerning the religious aspect. It changed its status secured its 
Greek Rite Catholic Russian character. They already are accepting 
Schismatics in their Organization; They are ignoring the Bishops 
rights. Without the Church authorities permission and knowledge 
they instituted a new Spiritual Advisor Off ice, they appointed the 
Spiritual Advisor. Therefore: 

I Bishop Basil Takacs at the same time notified Fr.s Alexius 
Vislocky and Orestes Roman , when I am announcing the Office of 
the Spiritual Advisor an illegal office in the Organization "SVO- 
BODA- LIBERTY". I forbid them to have any contact with the Organi- 
zation and its organ "VOSTOK". They must at once stop wtiting in 
that newspaper. 

No. 292 - 1935 

November 20, 1935, I have placed the A.R.Viestnik under "INTER- 
DICT - EXCOMMUNICATION " and withheld to myself the absolution of 
those faithful of ours, who disobeyed my order. 

At the request of most of my clergy, to lighten the burden of 
the penitent during the Nativity of Our Lord feast period, I decid- 
ed to delegate your Reverence, in my name to absolve in your pa- 
rish the reserved sin of the true penitent and that in .... cases . 

This power is given only to your person, only you can live 
with it, but, cannot delegate another priest with this power, and 
cannot absolve only your parishioners in your own church. 


Pastoral Letter, February 17,1936 
No 37 - 1936. 

I am notifying the Rev. Clergy that of February 17,1936, that 
I have sent the following letter to the President of the Sojedine- 

Michael Yuhasz ,Sr. 

President of the Sojedinenije 

Greek Catholic Russian Brotherhood 

Homestead, Pa. 

Esteemed Michael Yuhasz, Sr. : 

Being that you have satisfied my request and conditions, I am 
pleased to notify you officially as the President of the Sojedine- 
nije, that the Censure is taken off the Amerikansky Russky Viest- 
nik. Our faithful, through our clergy will be notified in the near- 
est future about this fact. 

With respect 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 

The Rev. Fathers are notified, that during the nearest Divine 
Services they are to announce this matter to the faithful. At the 
same time I am authorizing all my priests, to absolve in confession 
those faithful who fel under "CENSURE" for reading the Amerikansky 
Russky Viestnik, giving them a penance of salvation. 

Basil Takacs, Bishop. 



Pastoral Letter. August 3, 19 36 .pp. 6, 8. 

1. PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT. His Excellency, our Eparchial Bi- 
shop Basil Takacs, Homes tead, Pa. , "THE PLAINTIFF" through the E- 
parchial "PROMOTOR JUSTICIAE", Very Rev. Valentine Gorzo, McKees - 
port, Pa., summoned in a criminal lawsuit the priest of this Epar- 
6hy, Rev. Orestes Chornock, Bridgeport, Conn., already burdened 
by various ecclesiastical censures. 

expressed wish of the Bishop Basil Takacs, judical duties in this 
lawsuit were performed by the following priests of our Eparchy. 

a) "OFFICIALIS" Rev. Dr. Julius D. Grigassy, Braddock, Pa. 

b) The "COLLEGIATE JUDGES": 1. Paul Mankovics,Punxetowney, 
Pa., 2. Nicholas Szabados, Johns town, Pa. , 3 Stephen Loya "RELA- 
TOT", Portage, Pa., 4. Demetrius Yackanich, Trauger, Pa. 

c) The duty of the "ADVOCATE" was performed by." EX OFFO" 
appointed Rev. Desiderius Zubricky, McKees Rocks, Pa. 

d) The duties of the "NOTARIES" were performed by Rev. Dr. Jo- 
seph M. Mackov, Wall, Pa., and later Rev. Dr. George Michajlo, Ho- 
mes tead, Pa. 

3. "JUDICIAL FORMALITIES", required and prescribed by the Co- 
de of Canon Law formalities in the criminal trials ( i.e. cita- 
tions, appointments, notifications etc.) were strictly observed as 
it can be seen in the acts and documents of this Eparchial Tribun- 

4. SPECIFICATIONS OF FACTS. Mr. Orestes Chornock. The defend- 
ant complitely despised (vilipended) and disregarded all the eccle- 
siastical censures by which he was punished not only by this our - 
Eparchial Tribunal (August 31,1931) , later ratified by the Metropo- 
litan Tribunal of Philadelphia, Pa. , (Latin Rite) as approved by - 
the Holy See the Tribunal of Appeal in second instance (June 10,- 
1932), but, similarly dispised and regarded as not existent the de- 
cision of the S. Congregation for the Eastern Church, which was - 
approved personally by His Holiness PP. Pius XI and sent to us - 
through the Apostolic Delegation in Washington, D. C. , and was pro- 
mulgated by our Ordinariate to our clergy (February 22, 1933, with 
this decision the petition of the defendant to be restituted " in 
integrum " was rejected. Notwhitstanding, Mr. Orestes Chornock - 
having intirely rejected the ecclesiastical authority that of the 
Holy Apostolic See included, and as a priest, after being " depriv- 
ed of his office and benefice", and after being "deprived of the - 
right to wear the ecclesiastical garment", he refused with great 
temerity to abandon his office and benefice in Bridgeport, Conn. , 
and spurining all his sacerdotal conscience, continued to perform 
all his priestly functions. 

In meantime Holy Father extended to Orestes Chornock a great 
favor. Through the intervention of Pope's personal representative 
His Beatitude Peter Bucys, titular Bishop of Olympia, our Bishop - 
Basil Takacs ( April 10, 1933) absolved Orestes Chornock "pro foro 
interno" from all censures under very light condition to prcure - 
for himself the absolution of them also "in foro externo" within 
a period of two months, but sad to say, that this favor extended - 


by the Vicar of Christ with his Fatherly love, because frustrat- 
ed by Orestes Chornock, and he within the designated time did - 
not send even his reply. 

Orestes Chornock even later did not want to give any indica- 
tion of his repentence, although Bishop Basil Takacs tried to 
reach his fatherly admonition. On the contrary the defendant in - 
the mean time dared to commit a great crime. Orestes Chornock na- 
mely managed to transfer the deeds of the eccl. property of our 
church parish in Bridgeport, Conn. (Registered on the name of Lat- 
in Rite Bishop of Hartf ord , Conn . ) , on the names of lay persons - 
and induce the change of the original name of our church. 

How deeply Orestes Chornock fell into the grip of an haughti- 
est pride can be inferred from his letter addressed to the Bish- 
op Basil Takacs (August 16, 1935) in which although pretending 
his quasi-repentence , in fact he expressed himself in these words 

" By a desire of Bishop of Hartford I ask to be absolved 

from all the censures unjustly inflicted upon me without any fur- 
ther conditions". In fact Orestes Chornock was not • ashamed to 
throw a suspicion on the highest person of Holy Father, who (in 
persona" ratified the last decision of the S. Congregation for the 
Eastern Church. The defendant in his blindness took under his feet 
even a fundamental principle of the Canon Law: First, See, cannot 
be judged by anybody " (Canon 1566) . 

At the beginning of this year Bishop Basil Takacs received so- 
me trustworthy informations, according to which the rumor spread 
that some censured priests in company with the Schismatic priests 
intend to organize a new "Eparchy" and at the same time elect the- 
ir own "Administrator" in the person of above mentioned Orestes - 
Chornock. On the basis of documents, it can be certified that Bish- 
op Basil Takacs with all the means and power tried to prevent such 
sad and illegal event, but without success. And in fact Orestes - 
Chornock was elected (February 4, 1936) so called "Administrator" 
and was solemnly "installed" (March 3, 1936 in the Bridgeport, Conn, 
church . 

Even after this deplorable facts our Bishop Basil Takacs tri- 
ed to bring back Orestes chornock on the right road, but did not 
succeed. In his recent and to the Bishop Basil Takacs addressed - 
letter (May 5, 1936) the defendant expressed himself openly in - 
these terms : 

a) He does not need to be reconciled with the Holy Mother - 
Church, for he is quasi most faithful member of the Church. 

b) He would be reconciled with Bishop Basil Takacs, but only 
under the condition that the S . Congregation for the Eastern Church 
would retract its "unfortunate" decree "Cum data" and if the Ameri- 
can Latin Rite Hierarchy would recognize as obligatory here in the 
United States of America the Union of Ungvar (1646) . It seems that 
the defendant completely abondened the way of repentence and would 
come not as a Prodigal Son, but rather boldly dares to impose his 
owm "conditions" to the Holy Mother Church. Indeed, what a terrib- 
le blindness of blind. 

5. TIME OF THE TRIAL. The lawsuit of Tribunal took place on 
May 27, 1936 at 2:00 P.M. with a strict observance of all the ca- 
nonical formalities prescribed in such matter, especially," Proto-. 
collum Sessionis Tribunalis" supply of sufficient proof after the 
Collegiate Judges approved unanimously the request of "Promotor - 


Justiciae" to declare the defendant "contumax" (obstiate) ,the ju- 
dical action took its normal cource until reaching a final senten- 
ce (Canon 1842, ... ). 


1. Mr. Orestes Chornock is "ipso facto" excommunicated, be- 
ing punished by the excommunication not only "simpliciter" , but 
as well "speciali modo" reserved to the Holy Apostolic See. 

2. Mr. Orestes Chornock is considered "infamis". 

3. Mr. Orestes Chornock is declared "depositus" from the - 
clerical state. 



a) It is a fact that Orestes Chornock disobeyed his own Bi- 
shop Basil Takacs, spurned the sentence of the Tribunal of the - 
first and second instance, even disobeyed the Holy Apostolic See 
and refused to relinquish his office and benefice. 

b) It is a fact that Orestes Chornock alienated, usurped and 
permitted to be arrogated to eccl. property of our church by 
transferring the legal rights of its ownership into the hands of 
lay people. 

c) It is a fact that Mr. Orestes Chornock by denial of "Com- 
munion" with his legitimate Bishop Basil Takacs, by the acceptan- 
ce and by being elected to the duty of so called " Administrator" 
and by permitting to be installed in this illegitimate or rather 
entirely invalid office, became in the strictest sense of word a 

d) It is a fact that Eparchial Bishop Basil Takacs extended 
his paternal warnings beyond and above the prescriptions and re- 
quirements of the Sacred Canons of the Church. 

B. IN THE LAW - Here are brought forward the following can- 
ons concerning our case : 

Concerning the Judical Sentence n.l. :Can. 2346, Can. 2314,- 
par. 1. n. 2. 

Concerning the Juridical Sentence n. 3.; Can. 24ol, Can. 2314, 
par. 1, n 2. 

8. PUBLICATION OF THE SENTENCE. The collegiate Judges to- 
gether with the "Officialis" decided and order to the respective 
clerks of the Tribunal to procure the publication of this our- 
sentence as soon as possible, even in writting as indicated 3- 
tio by Can. 1877 of C.J.C. 

9. THE EXPENSES OF SUIT. All the judical expenses, we deci- 
de will be paid by Mr. Orestes Chornock (Can. 1851, par. 1.) 

10. THE APPEAL. "Promotor Justiciae" because a penelty of 
"degredation" was not inflicted upon the defendant, interposed 
his right of appeal. Nevertheless, the Judges allege Can. 1880, n. 
8. of C.J.C, where it is said : There is no place for appeal 
from the sentence in case of "contumax" who failed to free himself 
from it. Very good remarks are made in this matter by the eminent 

author P.J.Noval. "Who despised to hear an inferior judge has no 
right to be heard by superior one". Cfr.Commentarium C.J.C.,1. IV, 
P.I., Romae 1920, p. 428. 

Nevertheless, taking into the consideration special circumstan- 
ces of our Eparchy, it is decided, that "Officialis" as soon as - 
possible, will send a certified copy of all the acts and document- 
s in the case of the S .Congregation for the Eastern Church to be 


verified and approved concerning the legality of the definitive - 
sentences of this Eparchial Tribunal. 

Given at the seat of Pittsburgh, Eparchial Tribunal (of GREEK 
RITE CATHOLIC), Homestead, Pa. (407 Tenth Ave, on this 27th day of 
May A.D. 1936 

Rev. Dr. Julius D. Gri gassy, m.p. 

Rev. Paul Mankovics, m.p. Rev. Nicholas Szabados ,m.p. 

Judex Collegialis Judex Collegialis 

Rev. Stephen Loya, m.p. Rev. Demetrius Yackanich,mp. 

Judex Collegialis Relator Judex Collegialis 

Commissioned : Rev. Dr. George G. Michajlo, M/P. Notarius . 



A.R.Viestnik May 21, 1936. p. 4. 
I. A humble historian. 

Every encounter consists of an attack and self defence. In the 
encounter, in which we are for the past 7 years, in the first in- 
stance, we are accused of attacking our Bishop, the Roman Cathol- 
ic Hierarchy of America, the Oriental Congregation and eve the Po- 

The truth is that we are not attacking anybody, but merely de- 
fending ourselves and our rights against those who are trying to 
deprive us of them. 

The history of the wolf and the lamb is analogous to our situ- 
ation. We appreciate that we are too small to attack anybody and 
expect to win, thus we never attack. We only defend ourselves and 
self defense cannot be denied even to the smallest creature, for 
God Himself has provided it with ways and means of selfdefence. . 

Secondly, we are accused of fighting against celibacy, which 
if true would mean ipso facto ANATHEMA - EXCOMMUNICATION ( Can 10 
of Trent) . But this Canon 10 is applicable to the Easterners only 
because they also confess that married life cannot supercede a 
single, virgin life. To prove this statement, it is sufficient to 
say that Canon 9 of Trent, which prohibit marriage after ordina- 
tion and if contracted, declared null and void is not binding up- 
on the Easterners. 

The above accusation? was pricipitated either by the malice - 
of the accusers or by our own unclear expression. Therefore to all 
to whom it may concern we wish to take it clearly, that we are not 
fighting against celibacy, but against the forcible introduction - 
of celibacy into the Eastern Greek Rite Catholic Church of America 
and later on into the same Church of Europe. 

It is without questione, that the Eastern Catholic church hav- 
ing monks, sisters and celebs priests, has always had married 
clergy in Europe as well as in America. 

The continiuos use of that right is sufficient to rebute the 
presumption that in fact there was no document signed by the Pope 
specially acknowledging this right. 

Since our people and priests have migrated to America, 75 per- 
cent of the clergy were married, 13 percent were widowers, and only 


12 percent were celebs or monks . 

It is an historical fact that the first married priest Rev.E- 
ugene Volkay, came to America March 26, 1890, together with his 
wife and children, and is still acting as a married priest. This 
in itself would constitute a right for us by law of custom, Canon 
28 - 30) . 

The first decree of Rome, prohibiting married priests to come 
to America and officiate here, was given October 1, 1890 ( Six - 
months later than the arrival of a married priest) , but was never 
observed, either by us nor by Rome. 

This prohibition decree of Rome was issued at the insistance 
of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of America. 

Their open reason was that it is a "MORAL SCANDAL" to have 
married clergy, but their secret reason was and is: to get and 
keep the Greek Rite Catholics under their jurisdiction. 

Only some ignorant fanatic could be scandalized by the pre- 
sence of a married clergy. It is above any doubt that we are not 
responsible for such an ignorance and fanatism. 

To have us under their jurisdiction was a bit daring since - 
they did not know us of our Eastern Rite . 

In this wish they tried to prevent the appointment of a Bish- 
op of our own rite. When, notwithstanding that opposition, the 
first Greek Rite Catholic Bishop Soter S. Ortynsky, was appoint- 
ed in 1907, he was sent here without having jurisdiction over his 
own flock, and so with all his plans and orders, he had first to 
turn to the Latin rite Bishop of the respective Diocese for con- 
sent, approval and authority really, he was not anOrdinary ,but on- 
ly "the sacristan" of the Latin rite bishops. It is easy to under- 
stand he was treated by everyone of them differently, and some of 
them went so far, as to support those Greek Rite Catholic priests 
who refused to obey their own bishop. It was done just to show 
Rome, that it is even harmful to have an Eastern Rite Catholic Bi- 
shop in America. 

In 1913 Bishop Soter Ortynsky got full jurisdiction. Everything 
began to settle down for a peaceful progress. But in 1916 he died. 

Then for 8 long years, we had only an Apostolic Administrator 
The Latin Rite Hierarchy again opposed the appointment of an East- 
ern Rite Catholic Bishop, and when Rome refused to listen to them, 
they tried to induce one of the Latin Rite Bishops to change his 
RITE and become a transitory Greek Rite Catholic Bishop, for the 
sake of the final purpose; to Latinize the Greek Rite Catholics - 
of America. 

The present Eastern Rite Catholic Bishops, Basil Takacs for 
Rusins of Carpatho Rus ' Hungarians and Croations, Constantine Bo- 
hacevsky for the Ukrainians - Galicians, were sent in 1924, with 
full jurisdiction. 

But the Latin Rite Hierarchy did not renounce its plan: to La- 
tinize the Greek Rite Catholics, and did not cease to act to at- 
tain its purpose. 

Even now, after 50 years of communication, there are very few 
Latin Rite Bishops who understand us, and still less, who like us. 
In the variety of RITE, with its specialties ,they imagine some 
danger of the Latin Rite, therefore they try to cut those sociali- 

Before all, they, attacked our right to have a married clergy. 


As it was already mentioned, at their insistance, Rome forbade - 
that married priests could come to America. Later on Rome forbade 
to our Bishops, although they are of full jurisdiction, to ordain 
married men for priests. What a dangerous restriction J 

Then in the "EA SEMPER" Bulla of 1907, issued at Rome, but com- 
posed in America, they attacked the right of the Greek Rite Catho- 
lic clergy to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation. 

In the same Bulla there were other unjust, one sided orders, all 
favoring the Latins as : 

Par. 3. The Greek Rite Catholic Bishop has to have a written 
permit from the Latin Rite Bishop to visit his flock. 

Par. 4. The Greek Rite Catholic Bishop should procure the - 
transfer of the church property "TO THE DIOCESAN BISHOP", which 
means, to the Latin Rite Bishop. 

Par. 15 The immigrated Greek Rite Catholic priests belong 
to their Eparchy in Europe. To transfer a Greek Rr.te Catholic pri- 
est from one Latin Diocese to another, belongs to the two Latin 
Rite Bishops, and the Greek Rite Catholic Bishop need only be no- 
tified about it. Likewise in the case of dismissal of a Greek Rite 
Catholic priest. 

Par 16. The future seminarians should be educated in Latin 
seminaries of America and will belong to the Latin Rite Diocese. 

Par. 27,28,31. In marriage of mixed rite, the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic wife ( and, in ineundo matrimonio, every Greek Rite Cathol- 
ic bride !) , can follow the rite of her husband of the Latin Ri- 
te, BUT NOT VICE VERSA. Even the Greek Rite Catholic husband can 
follow the Latin Rite of his wife, and remain there after her 
death, but NOT VICE VERSA ! 

Par. 32 The marriage ceremony of a man of the Latin Rite - 
with a Greek Rite Catholic woman must be in the church of the man, 
but when the man is of Greek Rite Catholic, it can be either one. 

Par. 34,35. If the husband is of a Latin RITE, ALL CHILDREN 
MUST follow his RITE, but, if he is of Greek Rite Catholic, they 
can follow either rite. 

Every self consciences Greek Rite Catholic had to oppose such 
unfair, unjust and annihilating decree. 

On acount of that opposition the author of that Bulla prenoun- 
ced us as rebellions disobedient priests and people, but really 
it was our justifiable act of selfdefence ! 

In consequence of our opposition, some injurious points were 
changed, but not all.! 

Up to now, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, being not yet entire- 
ly successful in previous attacks, did not attack our right to - 
perform the servicees in the language of the people and not in La- 
tin. But, if they succeed in other attacks, this one might follow. 

While the immigrated generation is still ali^e, our services 
are performed in a foreign language, but the second generation 
will rightfully demand that the English language, which they 
speak and understand, should be used in our churches also. 

That's perhaps, what the Roman Catholic Hierarchy most afraid 

A.R.V. May 28, 1936. p. 4 



History repeats itself. 

In Europe right after the Union was made (for the forgatten - 
people) , the Roman Catholic Bishop of Eger claimed jurisdiction - 
and guardianship over the Greek Rite Catholic people, priests and 
even bishops . 

Here in America, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy is repeating the 
policy of the bishop of Eger with not less harm and restraint to 
us . 

And by what right ??? 

Did anyone ask them to be our guardians ? Certainly not I 

When our priests were sent here they received their jurisdic- 
tion, with the approval of Rome, from their own bishops. True 
they were ordered to present their credentials to the local Roman 
Catholic Bishop, but, only for notification, for discernment from 
Orthodox priests, and not obligatory for the Easterners ( Can. 1.) 
then wherein lies the power of the Latin Hierarchy over us ? ! 

Was it, and is it necessary to be under the guardianship of 
the Roman Catholic Hierarchy ? Absolutely NOT ! On the contrary - 
their guardianship proved to be very harmful . 

The Roman Catholic Bishops have to admit that they did not 
know us, our ri te, our , rights, our customs, etc. How could they 
know whether married or celebs clergy would be better for us ?And 
even if they were correct in their opinion, where did they get 
the power to force upon us, and by that to deprive us of our right. 

We lost at least 200,000, it means 2/5 ths of our people to 
the Russian Schismatics, and I dare state that we lost nearly all 
of them, because of the forced guardianship of the Roman Catholic 

In some cases the proximate cause might have been something 
else, but the cause; causae, was the interference of the Roman Bi- 
shops . 

Rev. Alexius Toth, our first priest who accepted the Russian 
Schism, did so, because of mistreatment from a Roman Catholic Bish- 
op, the late Ireland. In hasty revenge, Rev. Alexius Toth alone 
organized many parishes from among our Greek Rite Catholic people 
for the Russian Schism. 

Being, on account of the opposition of the Roman Catholic Hi- 
erarchy for nearly 30 years without our own bishop and leader and 
continually exposed to the temptations of Schismatics, our - loss 
was growing. 

The issue of "EA SEMPER" Bulla has provoked our defense and 
right against our own bishop, the late Soter Ortynsky, whom many - 
unjustly accused of being a traitor to our rights. This internal 
unrest gave again -every opportunity to the Russian Schismatics to 
harvest among our people. 

During the 8 years of the Administratorship, not having suf- 
ficient priests, the Orthodox ordained many of our Cantors (equal 
to the Latin organists) as priests and sent them to serve our peo- 

With the arrival of a bishop "OF OUR OWN BLOOD" from 1924 up 
to 1929, everything seemed to come to order. There was a peaceful 
cooperartion and progress. 

Then came the bomb ! On October 1, 1929 at the insistance of 
the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of America, was issued the "CUM DATA" 
decree. A renewed attack upon our rights ! The fight of selfde- 


fense was again provoked and is still ravaging. In consequence of 
this the latest losses, up to now, are in the following parishes: 

Bridgeport, Conn., Passaic, N. J. , Perth Amboy, N.J. , Endicott,N. 
Y. Central City, Pa., Clymer,Pa., Hawk Run, Pa., Homes tead, Pa. , - 
New Castle, Pa,, Rankin, Pa., St. Clair, Pa., Belle Valley, 0. , Camp- 
bell, 0., Gary, Indiana, 1- 2 in Chicago, 111. That is 22 perishes 
or about 1/6 of the Eparchy. 

Besides that open attack upon our rights, there is an under- 
current used to diminish and with the time, to annihilate the Eas- 
tern Catholic Church in America. Instead of useing Her to convert 
those nearest to Her the Orthodox people, they are undermining 

The first step in this direction is: to get the Greek Rite Ca- 
tholic children to first Holy Communion in the Latin Rite. 

Since we lack members in our Sisterhood, the churches do not 
possess the faculties to operate regular parochial schools. The. 
fact in the large cities makes it difficult for the children to 
attend their own Parochial School in the evenings . Many of our pa- 
rents have to send their children to the nearest Roman Catholic 
Parochial School instead of the Public School. 

That puts their Catholicity above any doubt ! 

But what happends ? When the time comes for their first Holy 
Communion the Greek Rite Catholic children, instead of being 
taught and "persuaded" by the Roman Catholic Sisters to go to the 
Holy Communion in their own church and rite, (Canon 859,2, 866,2), 
they are told that they have to go with the rest of the Roman Ca- 
tholic children; for that purpose they have to produce their Bap- 
tismal Certificate, and if not; they can leave the school. As an 
excuse they say that the Greek Rite Catholic children "ASK" to re- 
ceive Holy Communion at the Roman Catholic church. 

Something natural that after this most impressive act, done in 
another rite, the child is lost for the Eastern Rite. 

The second step is used at the marriage. The purpose of the 
Roman Catholic Hierarchy was made apperant in Par. 27. of the "EA 
SEMPER" Bulla mentioned in my formar article. The very flexible 
Cation Law is in their favor. 

Canon 98-4 says : that it is allowed to the woman not only af- 
ter the marriage, but in contracting matrimony ( in ineundo matri- 
monio) to turn to the Rite of the man. 

We being in the minority, it can be easily figured out that - 
more men of the Latin Rite will marry our girls than vice- versa. 
Really, that is the easiest and the most dangerous way to Latinize 
our people . 

Some of us think, that our Church will be Latinized if we ta- 
ke over some of the Latin prayers or services. Of cource, it is 
one of the ways and it should be avoided. 

But the real Latinization of our Church is when they take our 
children, our youth. 


"NIHIL INNOVETUR" ( nothing should 'be innovated) is the prin- 
ciple of Rome towards the Eastern Catholic Church. Rome adhers to 
this principle so strictly that even if the Easterners themselves 
ask for some change in their rite, or discipline , Rome usually re- 
fuses it. Lately Rome gave out the order to cut off all - innova- 
tions and return to the original purity of the rite and discipline. 


We did not ask Rome to force celibacy upon our clergy. And ev- 
en if we ourselves had asked for such a change, Rome, on its own 
principles should refuse to grant it. 

It is not strange that Rome granted something that we do not 
want and only others insist on it for us, causing by it troubles, 
and heavy losses ! 

By reciting the historical facts we do not wish to appear as - 
accusers or attackers, but rather as humble petitioners; that our 
unrequested guardians should meditate about those matters, should 
manly admit their errors and by respecting our rights, should re- 
turn to us our complete and deserving peace ! 

In peace then we will pray the Lord for blessing upon all of us. 

A.R.V. June 4, 1936, p. 4, 


Every encounter should be pondered from at least the follow- 
ing three points of view: 

1. What is the ultimate cause or the object of the conflict? 

2. Who is the attacker and who is the defender, and which of 
them is right ? 

3. How is the right conducted ? 

1. In our case the object of the encounter is: to enforce 
celibacy in the Eastern Catholic Church., first in America, then 
in Europe and Asia. 

Tfre enforcement in itself is proof that in the Eastern Cathol- 
ic Church up to present celibacy was not obligatory, but obtional, 
and up to xi-th century celibacy was not obligatory in the Latin 
Rite Church either. Only Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) ordered 
that:" in the future no one should be admitted to Orders without a 
vow of celibacy". 

One of the reasons of such a decree was the great open and sec- 
ret immorality not only of the secular clergy, but also of the 
monks and nuns . But to the authorities there was another more im- 
portant reason, namely that the offices and properties should not 
become hereditary, and, because at that time "from the blessing to 
the nomination for a primacy everything was for sale". On account 
of this the authorities regarded with detest the marriage of the 

Some accepted the decree gladly. But, even those accepted it 
for two opposite reasons. There were those who considered celi- 
bacy, as it should be considered, as a help for the more perfect 
observance of chastity; but, there were others who as PAMPHAGUS - 
considered as if an excuse for unrestricted life. 

Others vehemently opposed the decree of the Pope and continu- 
ed the practice of the previous centuries in the West, which means, 
that priests and BISHOPS were married after the ordination or con- 

No less an authority than Pope Victor III. (1086-1087) declared 
that under Pope Benedict IX. all Orders, from bishop down whitout 
shame or concealment were publicly married and lived with their 
wives as layman do. Benedict IX (1033-1044) himself was married - 
while a Pope. (Catholic Encyclopedia II. p. 429) (" Benedict, howev- 
er , succeeded in expelling Sylvester (antipope) the same year;but 


as some say f that he might marry, he resigned of his office into - 
the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was 
then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045 ".) himself was 
married while a Pope. (?) Catholic Encyclopedia II. p. 429) This con- 
dition continued after the edict of Gregory VII. We omit individu- 
al cases, but in general it suffices: to mention that St. Bernard 
reproached Pope Eugene 111.(1145-1153) for adopting Canons which 
no one pretended to obey. 

The opposition to the enforcement of celibacy in the Latin Ri- 
te Church through collegium lasted for 500 years, up to the Gener- 
al Council of Trent (1545-1563, and even there, after a very seri- 
ous debate, celibacy was not exactly commanded, only protected a- 
gainst being superceded by matrimony and marriage, contracted af- 
ter the ordination, was declared null and void (Sess. 24. Can. 9-10) . 

Celebs , single, virgin, monastic and hermitic life began in - 
the East, The Eastern Catholic Church always considered and appre- 
ciated it as an effective form of zeal and joyful self sacrifice, 
of abstinence and mortification, of ascetism. Virgin life was and 
is a most singular standard of morality, but in the enforced celi- 
bacy the importance of chastity becomes shaded and the essential 
point is that the priest should be unmarried. For the unchaste, Al- 
bert the Magnificent Archbishop of Hamburgh, invented the sinful 
excusing and consoling proverb:" Si non caste tamen caute".(Jf not 
chaste then be careful) . 

On the other side, there were heretics (Manichei, Cathari,Eus- 
tachiani) who considered matrimony as a moral sin and taught that 
married people have no hope of salvation and that matrimony will 
be more severely punished than adultery or incest. 

The Eastern Catholic says, that matrimony is a Sacrament has 
always kept the golden middle road: she always praised and recom- 
mended celibacy, but never forced it, she did not consider as ir- 
regular for ordination those who were married once and to a virgin. 

We do not intend to quote the copius arguments against enforc- 
ing celibacy even in the Latin Rite Church. That's their affair . 
But we have the right to prove that we are not wrong in having mar- 
ried clergy and in wishing to have such clergy in the future. 

Pope Pius II. (1458-1464) said: "Non erravit Ecclesia primiti- 
va quae sacerdotibus permisit uxores". The primitive Church did - 
not commit any error when she allowed the priests to have wives. 

Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) in "ETSI PASTORALIS" declared 
that the Roman Church does not prohibit the clerics, subdeacons, - 
deacons and priests from retaining their wives whom they married 
before their ordination, and that the usage, institutions, rites, 
customs, privileges, immunities, exemptions, concessions and fa- 
vors of the Easterners should always be respected. 

When our brethren of Galicia, made their Union with Rome at 
Brest, Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) in "MAGNUS DOMINUS" wrote:" 
Nulli ergo omnine hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae reception- 
is unionis, concessionis et indulti infringere". No man is allow- 
ed to infringe the conditions of this reception, Union, conces- 
sions and favors . " . 

When our ancestors of former Northern Hungary, Podkarpatska - 
Rus, an authonomous State in Czechoslovakia, made their Union 
with Rome in Ungvar - Uzhorod, the folio-wing answer came from Ro- 
me:" Re: in Congregatione Supremae et Universalis inquisitionis 
coram nobis habita, mature discussa, auditisque votis Fratrum - 


S.R.E. Cardinalium auctoritate Apostolica tenore praesentium conce 
cedimus et impertimur . Non obstantibus contraris quibuscunque".The 
matter (of Union of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition, after - 
mature discussion, and hearing the opinons of our brethren, the 
Ven. Cardinals, we by our Apostolic authority consent and command, 
and nothing contrary should be an obsticle. 


1. To use the RITE of the Eastern Church. 

2. To have bishops elected by the clergy and approved bt the 
Holy See. 

3. To use the ecclesiastical liberties. 

Also we never should forget that all those conditions were 
granted after the General Council of Trent, when in the Latin Rite 
Church celibacy was finally enforced. 

We also have the ground to refute the arguments brought against 
the married clergy, especially: that to a married priest his fami- 
ly is first; that his time is divided, that he has to take up so- 
me other work to provide for his family; that his subjection to 
the Holy See is diminished; that he is in danger of sharing the 
secrets of confession with his wife. 

All of these objections are so childish, that they are not - 
worthy of any answer. 

Was any of the Latin Rite clergy called to perform the duty - 
of a Greek Rite Catholic priest, because the latter was too busy 
with his family ? 

Can anyone produce a real proof that the married priest di- 
vulged any secret of confession, either to his wife or to anyone 
else ?! 

We concede that the Latin Rite Church made great progress ,but 
not because her clergy was celebs, but because she has more monks 
and nuns. The charity work and teaching is done not by secular - 
priests , but by nuns . ! 

The missionary work is done not by secular priests, but by - 
monks ! 

The jurisdiction of a parish priest whether he is celebs or 
married priest is just as able as a celebs priest to perform his 
duties . 

The Eastern Catholic Church is in great need of monks and nus- 
s, but not of forced celebs secular priests and enforced celibacy. 

The monastic life of the Eastern Catholic Church was, either 
intentionally or uninten tonal lly, greatly neglected, and we 
greet with joy and hope the return of the glorious past; the revi- 
val of that life through the introduction of new Orders into the 
Eastern Catholic Church. 

May they increase, and may their work be blessed ! 

Was the purpose of the General Council of Trent, namely, the 
purification of Church through celibacy, and that the reconcilia- 
tion of heretics attained ? 

As to the conditions before the Council, the exclamation of 
Cardinal Contrarini (1483-1542) "Quae mala attulit in Ecclesia - 
celibatus ille" , gives the answere 

After the Council, omitting the decision of many provincial - 
Councils, we refer those interested to the request of the French 


and German bishops proposed at che General Council of Vatican 1870, 
and to the statistics of the Plenary Council of Latin Americans - 
held in Rome 1899, and they will have to admit that St Jerome was 
right when he said:" Virginitas est dificcilis et ideo rara" ,that 
chastity cannot be enforced, and if inforced, it is not always for 
the sake of chastity, but often for the sake of power and wealth. 


A.R.V. June 11,1936, p. 4. 

Before his appointment, the late Bishop Soter Ortynsky, was - 
called to Rome and there confronted with a copy of the "EA SEM- 
PER" Bulla, together with the information that as bishop of the 
Greek Rite Catholics of America, he was to see to its execution. 

Being a member of the St. Basil the Great Order, which was re- 
formed by the Jesuits, he was not easily confused by such unjust 
proposition, but rather he promised conditionally, that after his 
arrival in America he would detirmen whether or not the demands - 
incorporated in the edict be carried out without injuring the cau- 
se of his people. He promised it conditionally, because he was a- 
fraid, that if he did not acceed to their demands he may be sub- 
stituted by one who for the sake of a bishopric would be will- 
ing to undertake the execution of the edict in accordance with the- 
ir instructions. 

After being granted the appointment, he took up his duties in 
this country and within a short time he became aware of the obvi- 
ous fact that unjust demands could not be trusted upon his people 
in such a matter. Therefore the edict was confined to his dask 
and never published by him. Its existance became known through it- 
s publication in the Acta Apostolica. With this indirect dissemi- 
nation of information concerning the attending circumstances came 
a storm of protests and the bishop was besieged with accusations - 
including treason to the rights of our Greek Rite Catholics, dis- 
obedience to Rome by his failure to officially announce the edict 
and the granting of permission to his priests to administer the - 
Sacrament of Confirmation with Holy Oil provided by the bishop. 

Those concerned took issue on the question with impunity, be- 
cause our own Bishop was without full jurisdiction and his discip- 
linary methods were thwarted by some Latin Rite Bishops, who en- 
thusiastically protested the disobedient priests. 

Superficially, the resulting activity appeared to be mutiny a- 
gainst our own bishop, but in truth it constituted the self defen- 
se against the decree and its authors . 

The resulting victory was twofold, when, in 1913, Bishop Soter 
Ortynsky procured full jurisdiction, the decree was subsequently 
amended and in 1924 a bishop of "OUR OWN " nationality was appoin- 

Upon his arrival in America, Bishop Basil Takacs was greeted , 
with enthusiasm. He was cordially welcomed by every parish which 
he visited prior to 1929. Contributions were cheerfully donated - 
for every purpose which he had occasion to sponsor. In a Pastoral 
Letter, which he circulated on his return from an official visit 
to the Pope, he expressed his appreciation of the good will ten- 
dered him by his constituents . 


How are we to explain the great change in the state affairs - 
since that time ? 1 

How are we to explain the bitter struggle which we have expe- 
rienced during the past 7 years ? 

The answer to these perplexing problems is contained in the 
fact that our bishop published the "CUM DATA FUERIT" decree. 

Here again the internal activity may be interpreted as being 
an attack upon our own bishop, whereas in truth it is in a defen- 
se of his rights . 

Although there were scattered cases wherein priests and bish- 
ops were married after their ordination or consecration, celibacy 
was generally adopted by the Latin Rite Church after the General 
Council of Trent (1542) . Married men were declared ineligible for 
ordination, that is, a Roman Catholic bishop can not legally or- 
dain a married man. 

In the Eastern Catholic Church, however, the fact that a man 
is married is not an irregularity, and the Greek Rite Catholic Bi- 
shop can in the absence of any other impediment, legally and va- 
lidly ordain such a candidate for pristhood. Consequently when - 
our bishops are forbidden to ordain married men, they are depriv- 
ed of their legal rights , and when we protest against such depri- 
vation, we actually defend their rights. 

Our Bishops maintain that they must obey, the decrees of Rome. 

Being Ordinaries with full jurisdiction, they are governed by 
the Sacred Canons, one of which (Can. 336) prescribes, that the Bi- 
shops should urge the observance of the Church laws . 

This raises the question as to which Church was contemplated 
wthin the means of the Canon ? 1 

Naturally, it could not have been intended that the Greek Ri- 
te- Catholic Bishops should urge the observance of the laws of the 
Latin Rite Church in preference to the laws of the Eastern Rite 
Church . 

Does not the "CUM DATA FUERIT" "Cap. l.par.3) prescribe and 
mean the same when it says : "Praecipium vero eorum (episcoporum)mu- 
nus erit invigilare ut turn doctrina et boni mores, turn ritus et - 
disciplina huic Ecclesia propria sanctae et integre custodiantur" 
It will be their (the bishops) main duty to attend that the doct- 
rine and good morals , as well as the rite and discipline proper 
to their Church should be preserved holy and integral. 

According to the laws of the Eastern Church they are privi- 
leged which we are endeavoring to perpatuate for our Bishops 1 

While defending the rights of our bishop, the priests have 
their own rights to defend. 

It is generally felt that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of Ame- 
rica considers our Greek Rite Catholic Eparchys and Bishops as so- 
mething transitory and only to be tolerated for e. short time. 

Therefore the priests are considered in the same light 

At present our priests are representatives of two groups : one 
is composed of those who were ordained abroad and who still belong 
to their original Eparchy even after being in this country for 20 
years or more, while the other group is made up of those who were 
ordained here in a veritable "no man's land". Because of their - 
long absence from the Old-country, and their original Eparchy, the 
members of the first group have long been expatriated and since - 
that time have acquired a new citizenship, but no new Eparchy. The 


members of the second group were ordained "ad titulum Dioceseos - 
Graeco Ritus Pittsburghensis", which even though temporarily tole- 
rated has no means to sustain its legal title. 

It is undoubtedly true that most of the trouble we have in 
our Eparchy today are merely the consequence of the disturbances - 
resulting from the issuence of the "CUM DATA FUERIT" decree . 

We are afraid that in consequence of this disturbance our 
Greek Rite Catholic Eparchy will suffer great damage and will be- 
come at least a partial prey of both, the Latin Rite Catholics and 
the Russian Orthodox brethren 


Pastoral Letter November 25, 1936 

No. 225/1936. 

The unfortunate conditions which you have already experienced 
for several years have evoked not only interest of the entire 
Christian Catholic world, but could not escape even the notice of 
Pope Pius XI, the Head of our Holy Church. 

The method of the strife of which we can not find in the his- 
tory of the Greek Rite Catholic Church, is suitable to destroy 
from the hearts of the faithful not only respect for authority, not 
only the establishment of the spiririt of Christ, but even the li- 
ving faith itself. 

These conditions have filled with the greatest sorrow and pain 
the heart of the Holy Father, who did not delay in giving expres- 
sion to this, but as the supreme judge, although sorrowfully never- 
theless in duty to his position, was bound to take the necessary - 
punitive steps. 

I have recently received through His Excellency, the Apostol- 
ic Delegate at Washington, D. C. , the following orders: 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1811 Biltmore Street 

Washington ,D . C . 

Your Excellency: 

I have been instructed to communicate to Your Excellency the 
following letter addressed to me by the Sacred Eastern Congrega- 
tion under date of October 29, 1936. The letter reads: 

Sacred Eastern Congregation 

Prot. N. 450- 1936 Rome October 29, 1936 

Your Excellency: 

With profound sorrow and a lively sense of pity for the unfor- 
tunate men who are responsible for it, the Holy See has been in- 
formed of the establishment in the United States of America of a 


LICS ", at the head of which is placed the priest, Orestes chomock 
belonging to the clergy of the Podcarpathian Ruthenian (Rusin) - 
Ordinariate . 

This movement, schismatic in purpose and manner, finds only 
too much approval on the part of the priests STEPHEN VARZALY, CON- 
All of these are engaged in the effort to draw as many as possib- 
le of the faithful away from the obedience of their lawful pastor. 
Bishop Basil Takacs, deceiving them with clever falsehoods and 
weakening in them that sense of reverence and of the submission to 
authority which is an indespensible safeguard of the virtue of 
faith itself. 

Nor do these unfortunate men refrain from pretending that the> 
are still devoted subjects of the Apostolic See, nor from discrib- 
ing their attitude as a necessary defense of the traditional dis- 
cipline of the Ruthenian Rite against the vexatious decisions of 
Rome and the violence of the Bishop as if rebellion against the - 
good pastor whom the Holy See has made for the good souls could be 
reconciled with love for their native rite and fidelity to the Suc- 
cessor of St. Peter. 

This Congregation is well acquainted with the fact that Your 
Excellency has already authoritatively intervened in order to re- 
veal the falsity of the boasted obedience of these people who are 
in rebellion against the will of the Holy Father, and that you ha- 
ve unmasked their insidious and guilty attitude. But in view of 
the persistence of a wilful confusion which threatens to deceive 
and greater numbers of the faithful of the Podcarpathian Ordinari- 
ate, the Holy Father wishes still more solemnly and (may God grant) 
more effectively to put his beloved children on their guard 
against the ravages of wolves in sheep's clothing. For that reas- 
on in an audience of October 17th of this year (1936) His Holi- 
ness charged me to notify Your Excellency, so that Your Excellency 
in turn may notify Bishop Basil Takacs and the faithful of ^he Or- 
dinariate, that the priests ORESTES CHORNOCK, STEPHEN VARZALY, Con- 
are EXCOMMUNICATED NOMINATIM by this Apostolic See, to which con- 
sequently the same censure is RESERVED His Holiness further wills 
it to be known by all that He condemns every manifestation and 
every writing which supports the schismatic movement headed by O- 
restes Chomock. 

The Holy Father confides in the divine mercy of Jesus, our Re- 
deemer and in the maternal and celestial intercession of Mary Co- 
redemptress to recall the erring to humble repentance and sincere 
good intentions , so that all who have been led astray by them may 
be brought back, all who have been scandalized in them may recei- 
ve edification, all who have grieved on their account may have - 
consolation and peace. Let Your Excellency, therefore awaken, 
through the pastoral exhortation of Bishop Basil Takacs, the fer- 
vent prayers of all the clergy, nuns and people of the Ruthenian- 
Podcarpathian Ordinariate, so that the sadness of the moment may 
be quickly changed into gladness at the return to their most lov- 
ing Mother, the Catholic Church of so many of her straying and de- 
luded children 

With sentiments of respect, I beg to remain 

Devotedly yours in Christ 


(s ) Eugenio Card. Tisserant 

(s) G. Cesarini, Assesor 

The above letter is to be read in all the churches and mission- 
s of your Eparchy, and published in all the Catholic periodicals 
which reach your faithful. At the same time our Excellency will 
kindly exhort your good priests, religious and faithful to pray - 
fervently that, through the intercession of Mary Immaculate, the 
grace of the Divine Saviour may touch the heart of the rebellious 
ones and bring them back in sincere repentance and humble submis- 
sion to the One true faith. 

With sentiments of Esteem and in union of prayers I remain 

Sincerely Yours in Christ 

Amleto Giovanni Cicognarti 
Archbishop of Laodicea 
Apostolic Delegate. 

Beloved Sons and Brethren: 

It is with a sad heart I obey this order of His Holiness, Pope 
Pius XI., through the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church 
transmitted to me by His Excellency, the Apostolic Delegate. I do 
this with a sad heart, since notwithstanding numerous warnings 
and communications the dissident did not reform, but even provok- 
ed this strict penalty, the like of which has not yet been in- 
flicted in the Greek Rite Catholic Church. Pain pervades my whole 
being that this had to happen in our Eparchy. But let this serve 
as a warning example to those, who complacently awaited the turn 
of events under the guise of neutrality allowed in their parishes 
full reign to anti ecclesiastical agitations, which caused the 
decadence of the faithful. 

We are living in most serious times ! Let us make it a ques- 
tion of that we priests participate during these critical days in 
the defense of our Holy Faith and Church. Let us instruct, lead 
our faithful, according to the spirit of the Church in respect - 
and obedience to the law. Let us show ourselves as encouraging 
examples. All times have their great men who, if needed, sacra- 
fice themselves for an idea, save their country, people, faith ; 
and if conditions so demand, let us , American Greek Rite Catho- 
lic priests, desire to be "great men" in this critical period. We 
must defend the greatest treasure of mankind our Holy Greek Rite 
Catholic Faith. The holy grace of God shall be with us, great is 
our responsibility before God and man, let us beware that we be 
not condemned before the judgement - seat of God. 

In accordance with the given command, I order: 

a) That each priest at each parish and mission at the near- 
est Sunday read word for word during High Mass, after the Gospel 
in a language understandable by the faithful (English, Rusin, Ma. 
gyar) this communication of the Holy Father. Let him explain to - 
the faithful the meaning of this "nominatim" Excommunication by 
the Holy Father, how great the punishment is and according to the 
provisions of Canon Law what consequence it incurs. 


b) That during the Advent fast on Sundays in each church du- 
ring High Mass the "Ektenias for the increase of charity and ex- 
termination of anger and all will be sung". 

c) That during the Advent fast, to gain the mercy of God and 
reform of the wayward, each Friday evening a Paraklis in honor of 
the Blessed Virgin, an Akaftist, or service to the Sacred Heart of 
Jesus be said. 

d) That the Ven. Sisters of St. Basil The Great hold a Nove- 
na in their Motherhouse and each convent to gain the mercy of God, 
reform the wayward and strenghten the good in constancy. 

e) Each pastor is bound to officially report in writing un- 
til January 15, 1937, whether he fulfilled the above order rela- 
tive both to its publication and prescribed services . 

Fear is the might of God and inexhaustible in His mercy 1 Let 
us inite our prayers and supplications that He help us and heark- 
en to our prayers. 

Your benevolent Father 

in Christ 
+ Basil Takacs, Bishop. 


Booklet November 24,1938, p. 16. 
Bridgeport, Conn. 


By permission and exortation of His All-Holiness the Oecume- 
nical Patriarch Benjamin I. We the undersigned Metropolitans, of 
Sardes and Pisidia Germanos, of Eirenopolis Cons tan tine, and of - 
Laodicaea Dorotheos, who are members of the Holy and Sacred Patri- 
archal Synod of the Oecumenical Throne having celebrated the 18th 
day of the month of September of the year of our Lord One-Thousand- 
Nine-Hundres-Thirty-Eight, in the Holy Patriarchal Church of the 
Glorious Great Martyr St. George the Trophy-Bearer, we have con- 
secrated as Bishop, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Rev. a- 
mong Presbyters ORESTES CHORNOCK, one of the clergymen of the Or- 
thodox Carpatho Russian Communities in America, who has been e- 
lected to the office of Bishop by canonical votes of the Holy and 
Sacred Patriarchial Synod with the honorary title of Bishop of the 
once illustrious Holy Eparchy of AGATHONIKEI A . 

In the testimony and confirmation thereof, this our letter of 
Consecration is given to the said Most Rev. Bishop of AGATHONIKEIA 
Msgr, Orestes CHORNOCK. 

Subsribed on the day in the Patriarch